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. 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. 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.

private musings wrote: 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.

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

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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

"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(a)marcusbuck.org> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture? On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

"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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

David Moran hett schreven: 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 8:41 AM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than going through all of the human anatomy. -Chad

geni hett schreven: 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(a)marcusbuck.org>rg>: 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. -- geni

On Friday 30 January 2009 01:02:41 Chad wrote: You don't think it's an appropriate illustration for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upskirt article?

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