Talk:Molka

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShanwenY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Celebrities involved in Molka

The infobox Celebrities involved in Molka contains two perpetrators and one victim of this crime. While, yes, technically being a victim is being involved, the grouping makes it sound as though the victim was also a perpetrator. The phrasing should be changed immediately. 2603:8081:2603:E100:E0F5:A365:B3DE:2545 (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Raising a question of bias

Spycam crimes in Korea do not occur much compared to other countries, however, the high rate of prosecution leads to a statistical illusion. In Korea, Twitter is NOT a major social networking site and the controversy on Twitter cannot be called a major controversy in Korea. the protests mentioned in this article were organized by the Korean feminist extremist forum, Womad. this article even quoted an article from the organizers about the number of participants in the demonstration.

This article, which was written by appealing only to emotions without clear grounds, is clearly wrong and therefore requires deletion of this article.

• Supporting data

https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/032/0003025692 - The result of detecting Spy Cam by the Seoul Metropolitan Government has been "zero" for three years.

https://womad.life - Women's supremacy, male hate community(their slogan)

https://www1.president.go.kr/articles/3701 - President Moon of Korea "Statistics show that female criminals are less punished than male criminals, so the term "biased investigation" is not right."

https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/022/0003334722 - Hosted use of male-hating terms and inflating the number of participants.

https://m.biz.chosun.com/svc/article.html?contid=2020012700345&utm_source=undefined&utm_medium=unknown&utm_campaign=biz - #5 on Twitter with 5.3% utilization

I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what's wrong or what needs to be added. 윤파란 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide reliable sources that actually state these viewpoints, but all I see is your own biased opinion and deletion of sourced material. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research Evaders99 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't particularly seem that interested in engaging in talk, but twitter popularity is very low in Korea , , I would hardly rely on anything trending on it as evidence that it's a hot topic in Korea. While it's popularity is rising a bit, at the end of 2017 it didn't even rank in the top 10 . Western media has a bit of a bias when it comes to Asian news. They tend to rely on statements from special interest groups as fact and do little independent research on their own.--125.129.16.99 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You are continuing to remove sourced material and assert that Twitter is unimportant. But nothing is sourced to sustain this viewpoint. Evaders99 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, you need to explain sufficiently and convincingly that Twitter is important, because Twitter is rarely used in Korea. I can attach popular articles critical of the feminist from an Internet forum that has more users and has more ripple effects than Twitter(In Korea) to this article, but I don't do that because it's not an ordinary Korean's point of view. Twitter is like a trash can where only the most extreme arguments are gathered in Korea.--윤파란 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

More recent sources

• Kwak Yeon-soo (10 March 2022). "Filmmaker zooms in on Korea's 'spycam' epidemic, woeful state of women's rights". The Korean Times. Archived from the original on 29 March 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.
• Amy Gunia (7 March 2022). "'It Breaks My Heart.' Confronting the Traumatic Impact of South Korea's Spycam Problem on Women". Archived from the original on 29 March 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.

mileading sources

I've noticed that the whole page is written on a often vague and loose definition of these "spy cameras", aggregating numbers of reported crimes that contain completelly different definitions. As some sources point out, in Korea any person can report a person taking a picture of them in *public places* and *fully clothed* if they feel "ashamed". This is grouped by some sources with the specific scandals of hidden cameras in an hotel, the burning sun scandal etc

Some of the sources make this grouping more implici than others, which is a big problem. I don't know how to fix it, maybe start rephrasing and nuancing some statemts by pointing out discrepancy of the sources grouping, maybe finding new more developed sources. I am interested to see what others think. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

I just changed a sentence that equated reports to police of suspected molka incidents to actual confirmations of molka. I'm seeing other issues related to this in this article; there's a widespread assumption that reports = actual occurrences, when there's no evidence of that. That said, molka obviously does occur and there's been plenty of convictions, but we must be precise on what the scale of it is. Furthermore, we should rely on as few subjective analyses from non-experts as possible. Plenty of non-experts say "x is a problem", but have no stats to support their vague feelings.

This whole article needs to be vetted. This is on a highly controversial social topic, and there's a lot of confusion online about this topic. People constantly debate the extent to which this topic is an issue. Our article is not helping the situation. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This page is a mess for the reasons that you mention plus others (what constitute a crime or not in South Korea compared to other countries etc). It should be shortened and give due weight taking in consideration the actual facts that sources give, and distinguish them clearly from social discourse of a specific time. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

some recent prosecution number can be found here: https://blog.naver.com/999law/222727526351

Note, again, that non hidden cameras are grouped together with (possibly) hidden ones. There is just no difference in SK laws. It's just a moral law against photography. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a blog fyi; can't use as a source grapesurgeon (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I took it from another page that was using it before being rehosted by naver. It is from a lawyer with an active practice. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I go by WP:USESPS

Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". [...] A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

But I get that WP:RSSELF demands that this lawyer may be published in newspapers or such as well to be considered a reliable expert. I guess it's possible to find the numbers in other places. Or maybe there is not even a need for them and there is already enough on current page. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

1. The rehosting thing would be difficult for others to spot, which hurts WP:VERIFIABILITY.
2. The self-published thing is more for like serious experts in the exact topic being discussed. Is that lawyer considered a leading expert in the field of molka? Like he's published works in newspapers and books and academic papers etc about the topic? If not, then he doesn't really count towards self-published sources. He's just a lawyer. Similarly, I'm just a random programmer with only a casual background in automated theorem proving; if I published a blog post about automated theorem proving, it would not be reliable as a source. I'm not a known expert in that topic, even though I am a programmer, and that topic is a field in programming.
3. Molka is a serious serious topic. You need to have very good sources when you talk about this; if you're trying to excuse a source like this it's not a good sign.

grapesurgeon (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, I understand the source issues now and I am not going to add them on this page. But I am not going to delete it from the wiki page in which I found it, since the source was there before my edits. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Luckly editors can keep edit despite not having a perfect grasp of the rules yet :) Improving is key. Cheers! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality of recent edit

@~2026-16576-11 and @~2026-29567-75 About the recent edits made:

This is why the edit reads persuasive: Even when comparing laws by country, South Korea is among the countries that most severely and extensively punishes the crime of creepshot, also known as Molka. There are many things to look at closely "there are many things to look at closely" is basically explicitly and persuasively telling the reader they should view the topic in a certain way; we don't do that on Wikipedia. It reads like an informal narrative, typical of persuasive essays.

There are also numerous grammar errors in this; they're fairly obvious to native speakers. For example, "Taking creepshots", not "creepshot". That sentence structure is awkward; native speakers do not like write like this. More natural phrasing is "When compared to other countries, South Korea punishes the taking of creepshots relatively severely."

Molka also shouldn't be capitalized, it should also be italicized.

I do think that there are valid parts of the edit, but it has so many grammar issues and your own personal opinion in it is a bit obvious; it takes time to fix.

Could you ask an AI chatbot to fix your grammar? Only the grammar; sources and content should all be from you. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand. I will accept your feedback. (Separately, I'm absolutely not the same person as ~2026-16576-11.) ~2026-29567-75 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

However, ~2026-16576-11 has not been active since March. What should we do? ~2026-29567-75 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Whoops I tagged the wrong person. Meant the 68 account; that's you correct? Same content area edited grapesurgeon (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, account 68 belongs to the same person as me. (Sometimes the temporary account changes unintentionally.) ~2026-29567-75 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yea that's normal grapesurgeon (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

So, an agreement has practically been reached, right? Because I agreed with your opinion. ~2026-29567-75 (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean we agree that the edit need significant revision before it should be displayed on the page. So if you're looking to get that up, you should present an alternate version here that addresses the feedback I gave first. Then once we agree it's fine it can go up. That's standard Wikipedia practice for disputed edits grapesurgeon (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. This is the article what I propose:

However, in South Korea, taking of creepshots about women in public places wearing revealing clothing (such as bikini), or outfits that expose their body lines (e.g. wearing skinny jeans or hot pants) can also be punishable. (especially if it emphasises the target of the filming) Even secretly taking pictures of legs or thighs (not "upskirt") can be subject to punishment as sexual crime.

When compared to other countries, South Korea has a broad scope of punishment for taking of creepshots (also known as molka) as a sexual crime. On the other hand, unlike South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan don't punish the taking of creepshots about women in public places wearing revealing clothing (such as bikini), or outfits that expose their body lines, as a sexual crime. Therefore, it's difficult to make a simple comparison of molka crime rates between countries. In addition, the crime rates of foreigners from countries that do not punish them in their own countries are directly added to the molka crimes that occur in South Korea. Even South Koreans and foreigners who commit creepshot acts (such as taking pictures of a woman's buttocks in skinny jeans on the street or a woman in a bikini on the beach), which are not classified as sexual crimes or punishable in other countries, are reflected in South Korea's molka crime statistics. As a representative example, the majority of people in South Korea who were caught secretly filming women in swimsuits on the beach and charged with sexual crimes are foreigners. Moreover, the maximum sentence in South Korea is 7 years, but in the United Kingdom, the maximum sentence is 2 years.

These are the sources that support the article that I propose:

• https://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2023080915104215630 –– Case where secretly taking photos of someone in a bikini in public place was applied as a sexual crime (molka crime) charge (in South Korea)

• https://www.lawtalk.co.kr/posts/120039 –– A case in which secretly filming someone's legs or thighs was charged with voyeurism/secret filming as a sexual crime (in South Korea)

• https://lawtalknews.co.kr/article/VDCBNDKM9ICS –– A case in which the act of photographing a woman wearing skinny jeans without her consent was charged with voyeurism/secret filming as a sexual crime (in South Korea)

• https://www.lawtalk.co.kr/videos/12538 –– A South Korean lawyer informing us that the scope of punishable molka acts in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan is narrower than in South Korea. This lawyer said that, unlike South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan do not punish secret filming (or taking of creepshot, also known as molka) in public places except for cases involving filming under a skirt (so-called "upskirt"); in particular, he says that secretly filming someone in a bikini (or clothing exposing the navel), which is punishable in South Korea, is absolutely not subject to punishment in these countries.

• https://www.munhwa.com/article/10904579 –– A South Korean media report states that over 90% of incidents involving the filming of others in swimsuit without their consent on South Korean beaches were committed by foreigners.

• https://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EC%84%B1%ED%8F%AD%EB%A0%A5%EB%B2%94%EC%A3%84%EC%9D%98%20%EC%B2%98%EB%B2%8C%20%EB%93%B1%EC%97%90%20%EA%B4%80%ED%95%9C%20%ED%8A%B9%EB%A1%80%EB%B2%95/%EC%A0%9C14%EC%A1%B0 –– Article 14 of the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes" say that "A person who takes photos of another person's body, which may cause any sexual stimulus or shame against the latter's will, by using a camera or similar mechanism, or who distributes, sells, leases, provides, or openly exhibits or screens the photos so taken, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won." This legal provision is the reason why the scope of punishable hidden camera crimes in South Korea is wider than in other developed countries.

• https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/voyeurism-sentencing-guidelines-uk/ –– In the United Kingdom, the maximum sentence for the act of taking upskirt photos against the other party's will is 2 years in prison.

~2026-29567-75 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The wording in this is better, thanks. Still grammar issues; can you ask an AI chatbot to fix? grapesurgeon (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I can handle that myself. Can I try editing? ~2026-29567-75 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes please try an edit. However, I still need to review that all the claims you're making come directly from sources. I'll let you know if I spot any issues. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Mmm I'm spotting some other issues, will review later today grapesurgeon (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted again. There's a major problem in this: you're applying your own analysis/comparisons based on primary sources (the laws of various countries). You can't do that on Wikipedia; that's considered WP:Original research. Instead, what we're supposed to do is summarize the analysis of experts.

This is a significant portion of your edit.

To be clear: I think what you're writing is important and I'd like to see it eventually added to the article. But we need to make sure we do it right.

Can you find some news or academic article that makes these analyses and cite those instead? grapesurgeon (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I was unable to find any academic research materials on this topic. This is likely because the fact that the scope of subject to punishment for molka crimes differs between South Korea and other countries is not widely known. Therefore, it appears that the only references available are the news articles, foreign legal provisions, and posts by lawyers that I have presented so far.~2026-29567-75 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There is, however, one research document that I consider to be almost the only suitable one (though it is in Korean). – https://www.kwdi.re.kr/research/ftrandView.do?p=45&idx=123077 – This is research material from the Korean Women's Development Institute. (한국여성정책연구원) It states that the loopholes in U.S. laws regarding hidden cameras are subject to criticism, and that active efforts are being made to supplement them. But there is no mention about taking creepshots of women in public places wearing revealing clothing or body-conforming outfits. (e.g., bikini, one-piece swimsuit, skinny jeans, hot pants, etc.) (Of course, I am not talking about an upskirt shot here.)~2026-29567-75 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I see... What you can do is merely summarize what those sources are saying. You can't apply your own analysis on top of them. You also cannot compare two sources yourself. Are you still able to write something using only what those sources say? grapesurgeon (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I write just a summary of these sources as best as possible? I think I can do that. ~2026-29567-75 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes grapesurgeon (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I need to review this more carefully later grapesurgeon (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

For now, I deleted the part related to that blog post. By the way, do you mean that the blog post is not visible? If that is the case, I apologize. Also, I tried my best to minimize grammatical awkwardness or errors, but it seems I didn't meet your expectation. ~2026-29567-75 (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)