G'day all,
I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.)
Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related questions is gently dying down - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Co...
and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt the 'sexual content' policy proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.3...
What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or not media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that all of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - you can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition retrospectively, and maybe not at all - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_dele...
I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual content, and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&ol...
The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles sexual content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming poll....
cheers,
Peter, PM.
Sorry, but I was under the impression that, apart from people making public appearances where consent is implied, consent of the participants should be obtained before publication of any photograph anyway.
I fail to see how sexual content is different in this respect; perhaps what we need is a reminder of general the ethics of photography of people.
-- Rama
On 06/08/2010, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
G'day all,
I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.)
Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related questions is gently dying down - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Co...
and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt the 'sexual content' policy proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.3...
What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or not media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that all of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - you can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition retrospectively, and maybe not at all - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_dele...
I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual content, and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&ol...
The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles sexual content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming poll....
cheers,
Peter, PM.
You might consider sexual content as material which has a fairly high risk of causing harm if published without consent, I guess.
Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately taken photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps only his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because I do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm.
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I was under the impression that, apart from people making public appearances where consent is implied, consent of the participants should be obtained before publication of any photograph anyway.
I fail to see how sexual content is different in this respect; perhaps what we need is a reminder of general the ethics of photography of people.
-- Rama
On 06/08/2010, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
G'day all,
I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude
words
and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.)
Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related questions is gently dying down -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Co...
and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt the 'sexual content' policy proposal -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.3...
What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or
not
media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that
all
of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material -
you
can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition retrospectively, and maybe not at all -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_dele...
I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual
content,
and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&ol...
The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles
sexual
content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming poll....
cheers,
Peter, PM.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, private musings wrote:
You might consider sexual content as material which has a fairly high risk of causing harm if published without consent, I guess.
Why do you think "sexual content" (however that vauge term is defined) more likely to cause harm if published than any other situation? What "harm" is done surely depends on a combination of the individual depicted, their attitude they have to whatever it was they were doing, the laws of the country that person resides in, the laws of the country the photograph was taken in, the attitude of the law enforcement of both places, the attitude of the media in both those places, the attitude of the general public in both those places. For example a photograph of a high-profile Saudi Arabian woman wearing a very conservative one-piece swimsuit has the potential to cause more harm than a photograph of the genitals of an adult French man with no high publuc profile while he is having vanilla sex with an adult French woman with an equally low public profile.
Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately taken photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps only his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because I do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm.
Why would an image of an unidentifiable man's genitals cause more harm than an image of an identifable man shoplifiting for example?
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Hi Chris,
The definition, in terms of the policy discussion, is detailed here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Definition
It's worth a look, and I hope it's reasonably clear.
You asked why I felt sexual content is more likely to cause harm than other situations, or the Saudi example - I don't think I did say that? What I was trying to say anywhoo is simply that sexual content carries a fairly high risk of causing harm if published without consent. I gather OTRS volunteers confirm that the people who get in touch upset about sexual images of themselves published on commons are often distraught - I'd like us to avoid this, and I don't really feel it's helpful to obfuscate the issue with other matters of potential concern - that's just my thoughts.
cheers,
Peter, PM.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, private musings wrote:
You might consider sexual content as material which has a fairly high
risk
of causing harm if published without consent, I guess.
Why do you think "sexual content" (however that vauge term is defined) more likely to cause harm if published than any other situation? What "harm" is done surely depends on a combination of the individual depicted, their attitude they have to whatever it was they were doing, the laws of the country that person resides in, the laws of the country the photograph was taken in, the attitude of the law enforcement of both places, the attitude of the media in both those places, the attitude of the general public in both those places. For example a photograph of a high-profile Saudi Arabian woman wearing a very conservative one-piece swimsuit has the potential to cause more harm than a photograph of the genitals of an adult French man with no high publuc profile while he is having vanilla sex with an adult French woman with an equally low public profile.
Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately
taken
photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps
only
his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because
I
do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm.
Why would an image of an unidentifiable man's genitals cause more harm than an image of an identifable man shoplifiting for example?
Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l