G'day all,
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing policy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content, flooding and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope you'll forgive me one post to this list, on this issue.
I believe Wikimedia is currently behaving rather irresponsibly in this area, and believe that, for various reasons, a calm examination of the issues is difficult. I have written a rather light-hearted, though serious minded and 'not safe for work' essay about this on the english wikipedia herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Let%27s_talk_about_sex- but would like to specifically raise the following points which represent my perspective;
- Wikimedia should not be censored at all - Legal images and media of all types should be freely available to use, and re-use. - In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.
I'd like to illustrate by drawing your attention to two images currently being discussed on the 'Commons' project;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to...
It's my belief that hosting these images without the subject's permission shifts the balance of utility vs. potential for harm towards recommending the images be deleted. I'd love to hear your thoughts :-)
cheers,
Peter PM.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:39 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.comwrote:
G'day all,
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing policy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content, flooding and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope you'll forgive me one post to this list, on this issue.
I believe Wikimedia is currently behaving rather irresponsibly in this area, and believe that, for various reasons, a calm examination of the issues is difficult. I have written a rather light-hearted, though serious minded and 'not safe for work' essay about this on the english wikipedia here< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Let%27s_talk_about_sex%3E- but would like to specifically raise the following points which represent my perspective;
- Wikimedia should not be censored at all - Legal images and media of all
types should be freely available to use, and re-use.
- In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be
rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.
I'd like to illustrate by drawing your attention to two images currently being discussed on the 'Commons' project;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to...
It's my belief that hosting these images without the subject's permission shifts the balance of utility vs. potential for harm towards recommending the images be deleted. I'd love to hear your thoughts :-)
cheers,
Peter PM.
I've always been a big proponent of using common sense, but it seems like this no longer applies. I can arguably see a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hardly acceptable anyway. What happened to descriptive file names?).
With regards to nude/erotic photos, I would implore Commons (and other projects) adopt a policy helping in this regard. Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping ground for all media that happens to be free.
I guess to summarize: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
-Chad
On Friday 30 January 2009 01:02:41 Chad wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me _to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg
a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hardly
You don't think it's an appropriate illustration for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upskirt article?
- In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be
rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.
Perhaps you explain this in your essays (it's late and I have to be up early, so please excuse me not reading them!), but how do you intend to do that? The only reliable information we really have is the photo itself - we can guess the age by looking at the subject and if the subject is clearly posing we can be reasonably sure they intended the photo to be taken, but that's all. I don't see how we can possibly be rigorous about it.
I'd like to illustrate by drawing your attention to two images currently being discussed on the 'Commons' project;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on "utility". I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of posing would ruin the photo - it would turn it from topless sunbathing to glamour modelling, a completely different topic). So I think this photo is appropriate.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to...
I struggle to see any value in that photo. There are plenty of other photos to illustrate miniskirts in general and I don't think highlighting this particular risk in wearing such clothing really requires illustration. So that rates low on "utility". It also rates low on "potential for harm" since it is almost impossible to identify the subject (it rates slightly higher due to being accidental, albeit reckless, rather than intentional as the sunbathing was, but that is overruled by the fact that you can't identify the subject). I think this photo falls into the "Virtually harmless, but what's the point of causing any harm at all?" category.
I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of posing would ruin the photo - it would turn it from topless sunbathing to glamour modelling, a completely different topic). So I think this photo is appropriate.
Couple of (very) quick responses;
It's my view that the decision to sunbathe topless (or naked, or whatever) at a public beach does not equate to consent to publish an image to a wikimedia project. This may or may not be widely held - I dunno.
In terms of 'how to apply rigour' - I think the first stage is to agree whether rigour is necesary or not, and whether it's lacking or not (I'd say 'yes' and 'yes') - I have indeed suggested some specific ways, but the start point is to ensure the uploader submits such information - they don't currently.
The benefits of some sort of 'descriptive image tagging' to allow for greater project utility are a whole other kettle of fish - the idea of developing a 'sexual content' flag (or any other tag) is thoroughly rejected currently, for reasons which I believe relate more to the ability of the communities to engage in functional discourse more than the merits of the proposal (but hey - I'm an advocate, so I would say that, right? :-)
cheers,
Peter PM.
Two comments:
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on "utility". I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of posing would ruin the photo - it would turn it from topless sunbathing to glamour modelling, a completely different topic). So I think this photo is appropriate.
The subjects aren't identified, but they are identifiable. They indeed chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach, but being naked is a very context-sensitive thing. A public beach is public, but it is still unlikely, that you will be seen by people you know. That's very different from being on the internets.
It also rates low on "potential for harm" since it is almost impossible to identify the subject (it rates slightly higher due to being accidental, albeit reckless, rather than intentional as the sunbathing was, but that is overruled by the fact that you can't identify the subject).
"almost impossible to identify"... If I would know that girl, I would recognize her. You don't need to see a face to recognize somebody you know. This image is indeed harmless, it's just a little flick of slip. Embarassing, but not the "humiliating" kind of embarassing, but more the "oops" kind. But we have other ones on our projects, that are more harmful.
Marcus Buck
"Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping ground for all media that happens to be free."
What's the difference?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Two comments:
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on "utility". I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of posing would ruin the photo - it would turn it from topless sunbathing to glamour modelling, a completely different topic). So I think this photo is appropriate.
The subjects aren't identified, but they are identifiable. They indeed chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach, but being naked is a very context-sensitive thing. A public beach is public, but it is still unlikely, that you will be seen by people you know. That's very different from being on the internets.
It also rates low on "potential for harm" since it is almost impossible to identify the subject (it rates slightly higher due to being accidental, albeit reckless, rather than intentional as the sunbathing was, but that is overruled by the fact that you can't identify the subject).
"almost impossible to identify"... If I would know that girl, I would recognize her. You don't need to see a face to recognize somebody you know. This image is indeed harmless, it's just a little flick of slip. Embarassing, but not the "humiliating" kind of embarassing, but more the "oops" kind. But we have other ones on our projects, that are more harmful.
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
"Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping ground for all media that happens to be free."
What's the difference?
"Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence, with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground" implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without regard to their presumed usefulness.
That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather than the images themselves.
DM
On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
"Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a
dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free."
What's the difference?
"Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence, with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground" implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without regard to their presumed usefulness.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.comwrote:
That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather than the images themselves.
DM
On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
"Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a
dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free."
What's the difference?
"Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence, with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground" implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without regard to their presumed usefulness.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical events, places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant. Hosting a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical events, places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant. Hosting a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.comwrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
Hosting
a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad
Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said: just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should.
Quality over quantity.
-Chad
"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should."
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com
wrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
remaining
culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
Hosting
a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
borderline
voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad
Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said: just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should.
Quality over quantity.
-Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.comwrote:
"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should."
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com
wrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I
would
hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
remaining
culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
Hosting
a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
borderline
voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad
Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said: just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should.
Quality over quantity.
-Chad
What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get in the first 100?
-Chad
I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of image I am aware of.
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com
wrote:
"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should."
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com
wrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I
would
hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I
always
considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
remaining
culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as
historical
events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people,
their
habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally
relevant.
Hosting
a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
borderline
voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad
Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said: just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should.
Quality over quantity.
-Chad
What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get in the first 100?
-Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.comwrote:
I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of image I am aware of.
So what are you arguing? Say something real instead of arguing semantics. I don't know about everyone else reading this list, but my patience for philosophical and largely irrelevant tangents sidetracking serious discussions is wearing thin. Are you arguing that Commons should permit as many sexually explicit images of as many different situations and angles as people could possibly hope to post? (Assuming the uploaders take the bold step of marking it as "free"). Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to knowledge? Do you prefer that we not even ask uploaders if the image subjects are over 18?
To some people Commons is meant to host absolutely anything free that people like to upload. To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of any sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship. To me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible. Wikimedia has a reputation that is crucial to its larger goals; making images of naked young women accessible worldwide, for years, in a place where they may never notice does not serve that reputation. When "commons community members in good standing" keep personal galleries of these types of images in their userspace, and that is the only use to which those images are being put, then whose goals are being served?
Nathan
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of any sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship. To me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
Re-reading myself, cultural relativism is not the correct description. If anything, its decried most often as moral absolutism or an assertion of cultural superiority. Obviously I disagree with that view. The way I see it, we as members of the Wikimedia community have a responsibility to not do harm. This principle, in a necessarily nuanced form, is embodied in the English Wikipedia policy governing biographies of living people - and it is past time that the core ideal of taking steps to protect others from being hurt by our work is extended to images.
Nathan
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea that sexual images equal "harm".
FMF
On 1/29/09, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of
any
sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship.
To
me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
Re-reading myself, cultural relativism is not the correct description. If anything, its decried most often as moral absolutism or an assertion of cultural superiority. Obviously I disagree with that view. The way I see it, we as members of the Wikimedia community have a responsibility to not do harm. This principle, in a necessarily nuanced form, is embodied in the English Wikipedia policy governing biographies of living people - and it is past time that the core ideal of taking steps to protect others from being hurt by our work is extended to images.
Nathan
-- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Moran hett schreven:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea that sexual images equal "harm".
FMF
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about deleting sexual images where it is clear, that the depicted person agrees to the depiction. We are only talking about images, where the depicted person is not aware of being published and/or has not agreed to it. People usually don't agree on being published cause they fear to experience some kind of "harm" if that would be done.
Marcus Buck
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
David Moran hett schreven:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea that sexual images equal "harm".
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about deleting sexual images where it is clear, that the depicted person agrees to the depiction.
Is it ever clear "that the depicted person agrees to the depiction"? Perhaps they did agree to the depiction but not to its public posting? Conversely, perhaps those who aren't facing and smiling at the camera agreed to the shot before/after it was taken?
I tend to agree with David - there is no reason to treat sexual content differently from any other. A "harmless" photo taken at a political rally could well do more "harm"...
Sam
Sam Johnston hett schreven:
Is it ever clear "that the depicted person agrees to the depiction"?
Well, it's not, but that's actually not a very useful point. I was never in Cameroon. I have never met anybody from Cameroon. I have never seen any obvious evidence that Cameroon really exists. And still I do not question that there is a place like Cameroon. Why? Cause people say so. If the uploader confirms that the subject of the image is not underage, has consented to the image and to the upload, that's no evidence, but it's still much more than requiring no confirmation at all.
We could require the uploader to give the name of the model for example (by OTRS, not on the wiki). We could require confirmation of age and consent, we could require an explicit identity by asking for a identity card number or anything like that. We should require at least _anything_. At the moment we assume good faith even if the probability for good faith is marginal.
Marcus Buck
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea that sexual images equal "harm".
FMF
The two are not necessarily equal. There are plenty of people who, upon finding a nude picture of themselves on Wikipedia, won't be too offended or hurt by it. However, there is the potential for harm in many other cases. Do a google search for "girlfriend revenge" (if you are old enough to be looking at such stuff, NSFW) and you will see my point: People post private nude images of other people on the internet as an act of hate and revenge. It's also along the same lines as the various celebrity sex tapes that get released: People take these videos in private, they get stolen or released by vengeful ex-lovers, and causes extreme embarrassment for some people.
Nude images do not necessarily equal "harm" by themselves, but they have a higher potential to do so if the uploader is being abusive then most other types of images. A picture of a nude 16 year-old and a picture of a nude 18 year-old person may look very similar, although the former would be considered child pornography and the later would not be. An image intended for private viewing in a romantic couple may appear to show a consenting model, but consenting only in the context of that private relationship.
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with these images.
--Andrew Whitworth
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with these images.
--Andrew Whitworth
I would probably view it as an issue of image quality. We have had Template:Nopenis for some time which among other things focuses on quality.
The providence of an image is a quality issue. Since we have no shortage of pics of women in various states of undress (see Category:Nude women and Category:Female genitalia) some of which have fairly clear providence (see Category:SuicideGirls for example) I see no reason why we should accept further images of questionable providence and quality.
I've already created Template:Nobreasts and it would probably useful if someone put together Template:Novulva
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with these images.
--Andrew Whitworth
I would probably view it as an issue of image quality. We have had Template:Nopenis for some time which among other things focuses on quality.
The providence of an image is a quality issue. Since we have no shortage of pics of women in various states of undress (see Category:Nude women and Category:Female genitalia) some of which have fairly clear providence (see Category:SuicideGirls for example) I see no reason why we should accept further images of questionable providence and quality.
I've already created Template:Nobreasts and it would probably useful if someone put together Template:Novulva
Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than going through all of the human anatomy.
-Chad
2009/1/30 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than going through all of the human anatomy.
-Chad
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images of faces.
In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same providence issues.
geni hett schreven:
2009/1/30 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than going through all of the human anatomy.
-Chad
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images of faces.
In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same providence issues.
The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So "NoGenitalia" *could* be the thing you two are searching for...
Marcus Buck
2009/1/30 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org:
The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So "NoGenitalia" *could* be the thing you two are searching for...
Marcus Buck
Breasts are also something on an issue. It would also be somewhat tricky to make a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nopenis.svg style image for Genitalia in general.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images of faces.
In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same providence issues.
Oh yeah, we humans tend to use faces as the way to recognise different
people... maybe genitalia are appropriate to distinguish between porn actors ;) (please do not take this sentence as an incentive to upload these kind of images, I think the set we have already covers all our encyclopedic needs)
Cruccone
On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole would not fall ,at least IMHO, under "Must be realistically useful for educational purpose". How is it any different than the tons of "preview" material available to promote the zillion porn sites save, of course, for the license? (probably this question should be somewhere on commons, but I am not a frequent commons user, I apologize for the off-topic).
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:53 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with these images.
--Andrew Whitworth
I would probably view it as an issue of image quality. We have had Template:Nopenis for some time which among other things focuses on quality.
The providence of an image is a quality issue. Since we have no shortage of pics of women in various states of undress (see Category:Nude women and Category:Female genitalia) some of which have fairly clear providence (see Category:SuicideGirls for example) I see no reason why we should accept further images of questionable providence and quality.
I've already created Template:Nobreasts and it would probably useful if someone put together Template:Novulva
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole would not fall ,at least IMHO, under "Must be realistically useful for educational purpose". How is it any different than the tons of "preview" material available to promote the zillion porn sites save, of course, for the license? (probably this question should be somewhere on commons, but I am not a frequent commons user, I apologize for the off-topic).
In any case, aside from the usefulness of the images, I do not see any rationale for the existence of the above category.
Cheers Yaroslav
2009/2/2 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
In any case, aside from the usefulness of the images, I do not see any rationale for the existence of the above category.
We have a few categories already for source-of-images, don't we? Certainly all the Bundesarchiv images are organised this way...
private musings wrote:
G'day all,
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing policy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content, flooding and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope you'll forgive me one post to this list, on this issue.
I believe Wikimedia is currently behaving rather irresponsibly in this area, and believe that, for various reasons, a calm examination of the issues is difficult. I have written a rather light-hearted, though serious minded and 'not safe for work' essay about this on the english wikipedia herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Let%27s_talk_about_sex- but would like to specifically raise the following points which represent my perspective;
- Wikimedia should not be censored at all - Legal images and media
of all types should be freely available to use, and re-use.
- In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be
rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.
I'd like to illustrate by drawing your attention to two images currently being discussed on the 'Commons' project;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to...
It's my belief that hosting these images without the subject's permission shifts the balance of utility vs. potential for harm towards recommending the images be deleted. I'd love to hear your thoughts :-)
cheers,
Peter PM.
Regardless of the permission of the subject (which, as far as UK law is concerned in relation to non-public figures, is extremely moot), I note that these images appear to be orphaned, and even if they were not, my test would be of "encyclopedic purpose".
There are plenty of topless images around, and also upshots. If any reader is really ignorant of either, I'm not sure Wikipedia shouold be filling that gap gratuitously. The text of relevant articles should be enough to turn the balance away from necessarily requiring an image. We don't exist to supplant the imagination, but to inform, in an academic style.
As for harm, I don't see it. The point should be whether the image does something that text can't. In the case of these images, and although I fully support images apposite to a topic under discussion, neither is harmful, nor particularly informative.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.comwrote:
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing policy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content, flooding and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope you'll forgive me one post to this list, on this issue.
<snip>
I'd love to hear your thoughts :-)
Stop. Your latest proposal was comprehensively and unanimously rejected on commons[1] and the previous attempt received a similar response on en.wp[2]. This post mixes unrelated issues (policy vs permissions vs deletions), looks a lot like inappropriate canvassing[3], and it's not even clear that you have any justification for your assertion about "hosting these images without the subject's permission".
Thanks,
Sam
1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Oppose 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sexual_content/old#Removed_this_... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_canvassing
Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding.
Nathan
2009/1/30 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding.
Sure, he has the right to post. However, forum shopping (if that is indeed what this is, and it does look that way) is generally frowned upon (mainly because it's a waste of everyone's time, including the poster's).
Forum shopping typically describes someone going from forum to forum trying to get a different decision on some particular thing they want. In this case, I don't think privatemusings is looking for a specific outcome (like deleting an image, achieving a block, influencing an AfD, etc.). The object is, and has been, to raise awareness of this as a significant issue.
The general subject was discussed recently in more detail on Jimmy's en.wp talkpage. That discussion can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_43#BLP_and_images. Some other things addressed in that section are userspace galleries of explicit images under headings like "hot" "admiration of the female form" etc.
Nathan
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/30 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much
right
as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss
it
further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or
responding.
Sure, he has the right to post. However, forum shopping (if that is indeed what this is, and it does look that way) is generally frowned upon (mainly because it's a waste of everyone's time, including the poster's).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org