Pete,
We did discuss the issues of 2257 record-keeping and so forth for several months last
year. But even the watered-down version of the proposed Sexual content policy was
roundly rejected in the "big poll":
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Archive_6#Sec…
This was the proposed policy that was put to the vote last December:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&o…
Our methods of establishing subject consent for sexual images have always struck me as
extremely dicey. By e-mail??? I have seriously considered whether we should ask porn
companies to donate sexual imags. (From GLAM to GLAMP.) At least the record-keeping
requirements would be fulfilled. Or ask university sexologists. But "girlfriend"
pictures are a
liability. (And why is there not a single image of a black penis in Commons? Perhaps we
need to form another outreach list ...)
A small success I have achieved is that the Shankbone topless vacuum cleaner images are
no longer housed in the category "People using vacuum cleaners" (where they were
the
only images present until a couple of weeks ago).
Another issue that came up recently was what to do about freely licensed, self-published
defamatory material. This is probably not the best venue for this, but on the other hand,
Charlotte being a lawyer, I would be interested in her view. The related discussion is
here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Usin… (Don't
click the encyclopediadramatica.ch link! It's just shock images.)
Andreas
Pete wrote:Charlotte, you present a well-researched and compelling point. There havebeen
efforts to inject some rationality into the curation of images on
Commons; I'm hoping that some of those who've been involved with that will
comment here. It seems that your research could pretty easily be compiled
into a policy or set of guidelines, and be put to use without a great deal
of effort.
Fred, while that's an interesting debate, I'm not sure how it relates to
Charlotte's point? Charlotte's point turns on "sexually explicit
conduct" as
defined in a specific piece of the U.S. code. I don't think the images you
reference could possibly be covered by that definition. Is there some
connection I'm missing?
Can anybody speak to how this part of the law is reflected in policies on
Commons, and whether there have been recent efforts to reconcile the two? My
sense is that Charlotte is probably right, and that posting the argument she
makes on the appropriate page in Commons could support the images' removal
without a whole lot of room for argument. I know these things can be
contentious, but I don't see much wiggle room on this one.
-Pete