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#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29


This was the proposed policy that was put to the vote last December:


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&oldid=46713054


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#Using_commons_to_host_original_documents
 
(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 have
been 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