Well, we do have a few universal values shared across projects -- including those which were made concrete when community members hashed out the foundation mission and vision statements. But it's not clear in which community it is appropriate to discuss those... [certainly many people are now expected to abide by the global standards set forth in the language of those statements who were active editors a few years ago and did not take part in the discussions about how to word them]

In my opinion the best system would be like this: We create a software measure to apply tags to specific content. ...

Yaroslav M. Blanter hett schreven: (for In my opinion the best system would be like this: We create a software measure to apply tags to specific content. These tags would say something like "contains explicit depiction of human vaginal intercourse", "contains explicit depiction of human penis", "contains depiction of fascist propaganda material" (so this system would cover all types of content that are not universally considered inoffensive), "contains depiction of naked child", "contains explicit depiction of 'very ugly' disease" (e.g. open ulcer). These tags should be rather fine-grained (so no tag would say "contains nudity", but the exact naked body parts would be part of the tag) and should cover all topics that are considered to be "taboo" by one of the societies on our planet (and when I say "society" I mean ethnic, cultural and religious societies, but not political societies, I'd rather not like to see this system applied for political censorship, but only for censorship, that is common sense in a specific civil society). Every project could then decide what kind of tags would be allowed on their project. As options they could prohibit the inclusion of that content (ideally namespace-wise), or make them hidden by default (so if an image is included in an article, you would have to do one more click to display it). Every user then could change the behavior in the preferences. So if sexually explicit images are hidden by default on the project, any user could change his preferences to show those pictures by default. If a user visits an image description page of an image that is tagged with one of the tags that are specified in the project's preferences or in his personal preferences, the user will get a warning "Do you really want to see this X?" (where X is the type of "tabooness") and can decide whether he wants to see it or not. Perhaps this could also be extended to provide a child-proof measure. Instead of getting a warning the user would be blocked from looking at the content. Although this would be on the border to real censorship and could be abused. I think, a system like that would provide the highest amount of flexibility without imposing any restrictions on anybody. Marcus Buck User:Slomox _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

for I believe in this part of the discussion nobody argues that the images like you mention should be removed, it is just a question whether they should be tagged (named, categorized) appropriately so that communities may decide to include them as hidden for instance. This is under understanding the whole issue is not covered by BLP policy (I assume if a vagina is shown but the face is not this is not a BLP issue). Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com a because They Honestly, this tangent has very little if anything to do with the issue that we ought to be discussing. No one has proposed removing or hiding images depicting medical conditions. If you want to argue against something that no one is arguing for, you should start a new thread. Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are too bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who wants to get to the template can click on "show" link. Same with the pictures: as one solution, one hides the picture writing "This image depicts a vagina". Whoever wants to see the image, clicks on "show".

I am not the one who raised the issue and I am personally fine with any images. I just want to state that this is a community issue, not a global issue. Btw yesterday an apparent troll started a topic on ru.wp claiming that nude images represent "pornography" which is illegal according to Russian laws. The topic has been speedily closed. Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Last post on this thread. On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings &lt;thepmaccount(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: many Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this? I haven't seen anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for suggesting one does not. I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of them. you can leave out this tangent. image, I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can leave out that comment entirely. Permission of subject should be assessed, period. If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass. SJ An aside on work-safety: Earlier, John wrote: I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest. I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different context. What I was suggesting is: - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the images]. It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context. [for any given image or block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not commonplace] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is under understanding the whole issue is not covered by BLP policy (I assume if a vagina is shown but the face is not this is not a BLP issue).

No one has proposed removing or hiding images depicting medical conditions. If you want to argue against something that no one is arguing for, you should start a new thread.