Hello all, Those of you foolish enough to watchlist the english wikipedia's admin.s noticeboard, or Jimmy's talk page, might have noticed a broo ha ha this last weekend concerning nude pictures on userpages. Basically, a user has an image of a shaven vagina on their userpage with the caption 'No more Bush, phew!' - a witticism that's been floating around US political satire for a few years. An admin. asked Jimbo what he thought, and he responded quite strongly ("The user page is unacceptable and should be speedy deleted, and the user blocked if he insists on recreating it") - a discussion about whether or not to delete the page resulted in an avalache of 'keep' opinions, and jimmy continues to be rather strongly criticised on his talk page for expressing his opinion. Anywhoo.. this list not being a sort of round up / gossip column for wiki-nonsense, I'll get to the substantive point - just wanted to give a bit of context first :-) The WMF has a large, and growing collection of material reasonably described as pornography. Here's a few questions about the foundation's role in ensuring the projects are responsible media hosts - Can the foundation play a role in discussing and establishing things like what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' on the various projects? Can the foundation offer guidance, and dare I say it 'rules' for the boundaries of behaviour? Is there space, beyond limiting project activities to legality, to offer firm leadership and direction in project governance? I'm hoping the answer to all of the above is a careful 'yes'. - for example, would our projects suffer if the foundation mandated that material loosely definied as 'sexual content' was restricted from the social 'user' space? (conversely, would there be any benefit to project health / reputation / smooth running?) (that's a 'no' and a 'yes' from me :-) Currently commons and the english wikipedia have very few restrictions beyond limiting media to what volunteers hope is legal. Media which is deleted as possibly illegal remains available to administrators, and no effort beyond the assumption of good faith is possible to ascertain model ages and release permissions - I neither hope nor believe this is sustainable. On a tangential note, I've also been looking at various governmental, and NGO 'codes of conduct', some of which recommend things like accurate record keeping on model information, ensuring users confirm that they wish to view material reasonably defined as 'adult', etc. etc. - perhaps we could take some pointers from some of these paths which are already well trodden. It's also my view that, generally speaking, the level of conversation about this is rubbish - please try to avoid pulling either the 'censorship' and 'prude' guns or the 'immoral' and 'depraved' guns out - they're just not helpful. For more from me, read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Lets_talk_about_sex cheers, Peter PM.