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.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Why don't you write articles about these, or a meta essay based on them. Here is another good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_release
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.
How about 'unclean hands'.
In the recent en.wp discussion that you mention, you added an image of a erect penis on the main noticeboard, and said that an editor down the pub told you that it was Giano's member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... (not safe for work)
And you have embedded these images, which you decry as inappropriate, on your own essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Lets_talk_about_sex
-- John Vandenberg
heh - as I say in the essay (and the noticeboard) - oh the irony!
My hands are indeed filthy - although I never went blind ;-) - and yes, we still need to talk about this stuff.
cheers,
Peter, PM.
How about 'unclean hands'.
In the recent en.wp discussion that you mention, you added an image of a erect penis on the main noticeboard, and said that an editor down the pub told you that it was Giano's member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... (not safe for work)
And you have embedded these images, which you decry as inappropriate, on your own essay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Lets_talk_about_sex
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi,
As has been mentioned elsewhere in comments on your writings, you have good ideas which aren't directly related to nudity or sexual content.
1) respect human subjects of photos and other media 1a) get explicit model consent, both for models who are 'many meters away' and for significant models even when their faces are not visible 1b) doublecheck model ages; minors cannot consent without guardian approval, and cannot be in some media at all. the more controversial the image, the more important it is to confirm consent
2) support readers who want a SFW browsing experience (say, on their machines at work!) 2a) this is largely about setting expectations. If you might reasonably follow a link while at work, and be surprised and embarrassed by the result, that's something you'd rather avoid. So while there's nothing unexpected or nsfw about a dead fetus on [[abortion]] or a naked body on [[human body]] or [[anatomy]], if a gallery of 400px mangled fetus images is on a prominently linked "Brilliant photography" page, it might merit a NSFW tag. ditto for a gallery of adult models on an "Internet sensations" page, or a prank video with a mild-mannered name designed to make loud noise and scare you (and anyone nearby).
3) delete potentially illegal content thoroughly
Start by implementing these ideas, and discuss the rest later.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:19 AM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
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'.
I believe the answer to the above, as worded, may be a careful 'no'. These are important decisions, and should be made and improved over time, but I believe it is the community's role to make them - and the foundation's to help provide interface or infrastructure to support the community's resolutions. Feel free to elaborate if you disagree.
A strong and sustainable group within the community can absolutely work towards and establish the definitions and guidance you suggest. Past discussions have generally been useful, and not spiteful, but never pushed through to a resolution at least on meta and en:wp.
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
Valid points. - Permanent image deletion : this could be a new class of deletion request, and a technical change. - Guidelines for getting consent/model info are a good idea; have you proposed some elsewhere?
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.
Sometimes it is. I've seen perfectly reasonable discussions on-wiki in the past. Try starting with the above, sharing specific ideas and suggestions for implementation, and building discussion and implementation out from a base of consensus.
SJ
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org