On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: What is the issue that you're trying to solve? I thought the issue was with images which aren't (or, at least, shouldn't be) used on any project. Yes, Jimbo confused the issue by deleting some images which were (and/or should be) used in Wikipedia, but I thought we were pretty much all in agreement that this was a mistake. Well, yeah, exactly. How the issue got moved from non-educational porn to educational yet offensive images, I really don't know.

Tim Starling wrote: Plainly put, my view is this. An individual should be able to make this choice. An individuals proxy should be able to make this choice for them. I may have different ideas about when in a natural justice sense such proxying of choice should happen, but in law parents often do, and some places schools do (in loco parentis), and there are other special cases. What I do object to is any solution that facilitates one person or a group of persons for making that choice for another group, without them being their proxies. That is to say, parents or schools making those choices, I find defensible, though not ideal (I do think those choises often have unintended consequences, including the retardation of their pupils education and developement as human beings). However, whatever gloss you put on it, I am not comfortable with the state, or a religious community doing it, or helping the state or religious community do it. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhonson(a)aol.com <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill that void.  That someone does not need to be us.  Google does this job with their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively "tag" any images.  How do they do that?  I have no idea, but they do it.  I would suggest a "child-safe" approach to Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a "moderate filter" setting.  Try it, it works. It doesn't work if you enter Commons through the main page, or an image page, and then search through its categories. The best-thumbed pages of library books are usually the ones that have nude images; it's human nature. Commons is no different if you look at the top-1000. With respect to minors, the libertarian position that anyone should be able to see whatever they want to see is simply a fringe position. Every country legally defines some things as "harmful" to minors* and expects providers to behave in a way that prevents that harm. Arguing about whether the harm is real is an idle debate that's of no interest to teachers, say, who are legally bound by these standards and can experience professional repercussions if they fail in their duty of care. I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their "young children" as one message put it, to browser without any filtering mechanism, is deciding to trust that child, or else does not care if the child encounters objectionable material.  The child's browsing activity is already open to five million porn site hits as it stands, Commons isn't creating that issue.  And Commons cannot solve that issue.  It's the parents responsibility to have the appropriate self-selected mechanisms in place.  And I propose that all parents who care, already *do*.  So this issue is a non-issue.  It doesn't actually exist in any concrete example, just in the minds of a few people with spare time. As I see it, a working filter system for adult content would relieve teachers and librarians of the headache involved in making Commons or WP available to minors. Do we have figures on how many schools or libraries in various countries block access to Wikimedia sites over concerns related to content harmful to minors? Is this a frequently-voiced concern, or are we making more of it than it is? The most sensible access control system would be one that can be set up on a physical computer used by minors. (Linking it to user account data would not work, as IP users should have normal access.) And if the same child is allowed to surf the net freely by their parents at home, then that is perfect. It is the parents' choice, and every parent handles this differently. If an outside developer were to create such a filter product, that would be great too. I just wonder how they would cope with categories and images being renamed, new categories being created, etc. And does anyone actually know how Google manages to filter out images in safe search?Andreas * See the Miller test for minors reproduced at  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Pornography

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote: [...] [...] Their ideology does not allow them to consider any solution which I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the websites. I wouldn't call that "making a decision on behalf of another", but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Religious conservatives think that seeing certain images, or reading I think you've overstated that position. Would you include Larry Sanger in this category? He doesn't seem to be in either of the other two. Moderates tolerate both views. They may have a moral relativist Just because you've come up with two wrong positions doesn't mean that the right position is somewhere in between, or that we should tolerate both positions. Where would the educator fit among these three positions? Someone who wants to create a learning resource, and wants to select the proper information which they feel will maximize the educational value of that which they are producing. Someone who recognizes that *it is impossible* for "all information to be available to everyone", and their job, while not one of "making a decision on behalf of another", is more to present a decision to others - not to compromise from what they consider to be the right decision, but to lay it out there, for others to accept or to reject. I wouldn't call them moderates. They are most certainly not moral relativist, and they have no desire to find compromises between the other two/three terrible positions. Let's add a fourth faction, the "educators".

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: [snip] And one which inevitably has apparently unresolvable conflicts with one of our core organizing principles, NPOV. Hundreds of millions of viewers a month visit Wikipedia, many of them religious conservatives. But our structure is not one that produces articles on sexuality or religion (and sometimes on politics, and science...) that are found to be acceptable by, at least, the most hard-line among them. Even the most widely acceptable initiative must eventually accept that it can't please everyone. This is probably just one of the limits of our model, and it's OKAY to have limits, everything does. Consider, for a moment, the ALA list of most frequently challenged books: http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/21stcentu… I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_ amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive and not at all compatible with "ideas which must be suppressed". This fact gets a lot of names, some call it a "liberal bias" though I don't think that is quite accurate. But there very much is a bias— a pro-flow-of-information bias. We don't always realize we have it, but I don't think we deny it when we do. Jimmy brought this up in his keynote at Wikiconference New York in 2009: http://www.archive.org/download/NYwikiconf_wales_keynote_25july2009/NYwikic… There are other resources which address these subject areas in a manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as conservapedia. It is a beneficial that there are alternative information sources, no one wants a world where all reference works are Wikipedia, so to the extent that our inability to cover some areas to some people's satisfaction creates more room for alternatives it is a good thing. I'd like to address an idea that underlies a lot of this discussion which I think is patently ridiculous: That our inability to please _everyone_ on _all_ articles is actually something to worry about. It's not something that can actually be done, all we can hope to choose is decide who we'll please, and by our core principles it appears that we've chosen to error towards the libertarians. In terms of overall popularity we would have better off not to, but then again I doubt we could have built something so useful another way. There is no existence proof yet, at least. The internet is chock full of things that hard-line religious conservatives would believe imperil the soul of anyone who views it. Even the most aggressive government censorship short of a total internet ban only suppresses are relatively small amount of this material. ... and yet people with these concerns continue to use the internet happily and productively. The impossibility of total censorship means that "don't look if you don't like" is a reality for everyone and not just libertarians. (English) Wikipedia stopped being "an encyclopedia" about 3 million articles ago. Today it is a collection of specialist encyclopaedias, or really— a federation of 3.2 million separate articles sharing a common set of principles and other infrastructure. It is expected and acceptable that some people may strongly approve some parts and strongly oppose others. Wikipedia, in the aggregate, is an excellent resource even for the staunchest religious conservative. But due to our core principles, some parts of Wikipedia will _never_ be acceptable to that audience. In at least a few cases, no amount of careful handling can satisfy a hard "factional information which must be suppressed to protect your soul" at the same time as fulfilling the effective direction from NPOV to factually express all major viewpoints. As with any of our other limitations— I would recommend that people find other resources that meet their needs when Wikipedia doesn't, just as do for millions of other webpages.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't read that. What I see is a debate about whether Commons discriminates in the right ways, not a belief that it is indiscriminate. The most frequent censorship on the Projects is done in the name of notability -- and it is done all the time. As an eventualist myself, I think that we are generally *too discriminate* in what we accept -- Commons and English Wikipedia are quite ready to delete media and articles simply because one group of established editors disagrees with the notability standards or writing style of a younger, less wiki-savvy group. For instance, professional artist, animator, and free culture activist Nina Paley had quite a difficult time contributing artwork to Commons without having it (and her userpage!) deleted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nina_Paley As to whether we have the right policies for discriminating between good and bad images of human sexuality, I think the worst issue is simply the lack of a standard for model releases. When it comes to assessing quality and appropriateness, I don't think the Commons standards in that category are much worse than in other categories. (Of course it may be true that the impact of standards in that category is much greater than in other cats, because of its disproportionate popularity). SJ

Hi, 2010/5/11 Noein <pronoein(a)gmail.com>om>: I think that, world wide, people from conservative or traditional cultures don't have as much Internet access as people with libertarian views. This is specially true outside of the Western world. That may explain why there are not so much opposition to the libertarian position of Wikimedia. Internet access helps to get a larger view, better understanding of other cultures, and a more open opinion on sensitive subjects. Yann

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling &lt;tstarling(a)wikimedia.org&gt;wrote;wrote: Well, I fully agree with that fundamental principle, and yet I wouldn't categorize any of those "solutions" as violating that principle, nor would I characterize them as "making decisions on behalf of another". And really, I don't see how you could possibly characterize these actions that way. You say "Some people may wish to see that content, it would be wrong for us to stop them." I would think the libertarian response to that is that a desire to have something does not constitute a right to force others to provide it to you. Now, granted, I don't think the line should be drawn at "particularly offensive images". I'd say the primary, if not sole criterion (besides the obvious legality and free license), would be the bona fide educational value of the image. I'd say the image of Saint Terese, while obviously highly offensive to some, would be acceptable if (and, in my opinion, only if) some text was included right on the image page which explained such things as who created it, what he was trying to say with it, what historical impact it had, etc. I think such a task, applied to any and all questionable images, would also be something that could be pointed to should the media come by and cry "pornography". The explanation should be right there on the image page justifying the educational nature of the image. Yes, there will be some people who will remain opposed to such images regardless of the explanation, but at that point (and not before it) I think we can properly treat such people as obviously irrational. Of course, the explanations would need to be good ones. I can think of a lot of bad explanations that would likely be offered for the inclusion of certain images, and I don't at all trust the community to recognize them as such. I think you should consider that some of the "educators" aren't pragmatists at all. I look at your three categories, and I like some of each, and dislike some of each. I fully agree with the principle you ascribe to the libertarians "that the individual should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom". But a freedom is just that, a freedom, not an entitlement. People who want to view porn should (and do) have the freedom to view porn. But that doesn't mean the WMF has a duty to host it for them. The "religious conservatives" are probably right that seeing certain images, at least for people at a certain age, and especially without the proper context, is dangerous. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "morally dangerous", but hard core pornography, especially certain forms of hard core pornography, is probably not very healthy. I certainly don't want my son or daughter viewing porn videos as he's learning about sex. Finally, there's what you call "the moderates". Actually I don't see much value in that position at all, at least as you describe it. But to the extent "the moderates" advocate taking some ideas from both of the other two positions, I guess I can agree with that. As you describe them, "the moderates" are the pragmatists, and that's a big part of what they've gotten wrong. I would advocate that the WMF adopt a principled position with respect to pornography, and then let people decide whether or not they wish to use an encyclopedia built on those principles. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor < Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com &lt;Simetrical%2Bwikilist(a)gmail.com&gt;&gt; wrote: Primarily because of copyright issues, at least with regard to the latter, I believe. I used to joke about "what's next, a photo on Goatse.cx?" when arguing with the "when you look up X you expect a photo of X" crowd, but then, for a while it actually came true.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor < > > Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com &lt;Simetrical%2Bwikilist(a)gmail.com&gt; < > Simetrical%2Bwikilist(a)gmail.com &lt;Simetrical%252Bwikilist(a)gmail.com&gt;&gt;&gt; > >> [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image > >> of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and > >> [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of its subject matter. Why? > >> > > > > Primarily because of copyright issues, at least with regard to the > latter, I > > believe. I used to joke about "what's next, a photo on Goatse.cx?" when > > arguing with the "when you look up X you expect a photo of X" crowd, but > > then, for a while it actually came true. > > This is a standard fair-use case: it's a notable image, and our > informative article about it is not complete without a copy of the > image. It's the same reason we can put an image on, I don't know, > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Maar_au_Chat>. Except we don't, > because it's revolting. > > It's at this moments that I'm really thankful that spanish wikipedia has committed to actually be a free-content encyclopedia and only use Commons material (which, as we know, doesn't allow fairuse). I can only hope all this shaking won't change that.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling &lt;tstarling(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: There are some people here who exactly fit your description of conservatives, such as me. But we're forced by the overwhelming libertarian majority to play the part of moderates as a compromise. Regardless, more people than just religious conservatives would prefer not to see naked people without warning. At the very least, few people would be happy in unexpected nudity showing up while they're browsing at work, with children watching them, etc. -- it's embarrassing. You're probably correct that this is *historically* due to religious conservatism, but the preference remains even for completely irreligious people. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Sure, and that's inevitable. You aren't going to please people who have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise. But leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle, we are still left with a very large number of people who would simply prefer not to see it. Or would at least *sometimes* prefer not to see it (at work, when kids are around, etc.). If these people want to look at even totally innocuous articles like [[Human]], they will be forced to look at images they don't want to see, with no warning. This is completely unnecessary. First of all, the images rarely add much value. If anyone has *not* often seen a naked person or erect penis or whatever before, it is almost certainly because they have gone out of their way not to and don't want to see it right now, so including it doesn't help them get what they want. If they have seen it often before, then they gain no real information from the image. At best it serves as decoration, and decoration that a lot of people don't want to see is counterproductive. Sure, fine, there are going to be some people who want to find some high-quality freely-licensed nude photographs for whatever reason. But they'll be a small minority of visitors to an article like [[Human]]. If you discount people who are reading Wikipedia for titillation rather than information (and we should -- our goal is not to provide titillation), then likely only a minority of visitors even to [[Penis]] are interested in a photograph. If you want information about penises, you're looking for biological facts, not a simple photo. You've seen photos plenty of times before, if not the real thing. A photo just distracts from genuinely informative content like a diagram or prose. The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links, or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You don't hide any information from people who actually want it (you require an extra click at most), and you don't force people to view images that they don't want to view. This allows as many people as possible to get what they want: people who want to see the images can see them, and those who don't can choose not to. The status quo forces people to view the images whether or not they want to. And a lot of people don't want to look at naked people without warning, for whatever reason. The standard objection here is "But then we have to hide Muhammad images too!" This is, of course, a non sequitur. A large percentage of English speakers prefer not to see nude images without warning, but only a tiny percentage prefer not to see pictures of Muhammad, so the English Wikipedia should cater to the former group but not the latter. The Arabic Wikipedia might also cater to the latter group -- indeed, I see no pictures of Muhammad at <http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/محمد>. But we only need to look at large groups of viewers, not small minorities. If the minority is small enough, their benefit from not having to see the images is outweighed by the majority's benefit in the aesthetic appeal of the images. It's not like the English Wikipedia isn't making judgments calls exactly like this already. [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of its subject matter. Why? Because enwiki editors prefer not to see those images without warning, so they don't show them without warning. ([[Goatse.cx]] does indeed contain an external link to its subject matter, as I suggest. I get the impression there's been edit-warring about [[Daniel Pearl]], but probably out of respect for his family, not because the video is gruesome.) It's really very easy to determine where to draw the line. There are a multitude of English-language informative publications (encyclopedias, newspapers, news shows, etc.) published by many independent companies, and the major ones all follow quite similar standards on what sorts of images they publish. Since news reporting, for instance, is very competitive, we can surmise that they avoid showing images only because their viewers don't want to see them. Or if it's because of regulations, those are instituted democratically, so a similar conclusion follows. The solution is very simple. Keep all the images if you like. Determine, by policy, what sorts of images should not be shown by default, based on the policies of major publications in the relevant language. If an image is informative but falls afoul of the policy, then include it as a link, or a blurred-out version, or something like that. This way people can see the images only if they actually want to see them, and not be forced to see them regardless. It would hardly be any great burden when compared to the innumerable byzantine policies that already encumber everything on Wikipedia. The reason that this isn't the status quo has nothing to do with libertarianism. As I argue above, the properly libertarian solution would be to give people a choice of which images they view if there's doubt whether they'd like to view them. Rather, quite simply, we have sexual images in articles without warning because Wikipedia editors tend to be sexually liberal as a matter of demographics, and have a lot more tolerance for nudity than the average person. With no effective means of gathering input from non-editors, they decide on an image policy that's much more liberal than what their viewers would actually like. This is a gratuitous disservice to Wikipedia's viewers, and should be rectified.

I agree with David Gerard's suggestion above: this is a solution that will meet a variety of needs, and is therefore value-neutral. It can be applied to more than categories--someone with a moderately slow connection might wish to disable images in articles above a certain size, or articles containing many images. Personally, I sometimes disable image loading in my browser selectively in looking at certain sites where the images interfere with use of the material I actually want. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor &lt;Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You're making an assumption there on no evidence: a "large percentage" wanting to be opted out by default. If you write it, then logged-in users could give you numbers. (e.g. a Western World "worksafe" filter set will undoubtedly be popular.) Commons admins are in fact *painstaking* in accurate categorisation; the filter sets should be stable. I think it's a bad idea *and* you are unlikely to obtain consensus. Because filtering for people who *haven't* asked is quite a different proposition from filtering for people who *have* asked, in what I'd hope are fairly obvious ways. wjohnson(a)aol.com wrote: Indeed. - d.

Samuel Klein wrote: Not an argument as such, but I would imagine that with regard to amateur photography of all sorts, in the long term the main effect would be to educate them in the correct practices of model rights. After all I would expect that amateur photographers would not really have great difficulty in obtaining model rights, once they know that is a requirement. It might however have a chilling effect on those people sharing images that don't really require model releases, such as photographs shot in public spaces, especially where the person in the frame can't even be recognized. Another question is, if such a stance on model rights were taken, would it be reasonable to just retroactively apply it to images already on the site, or should there be a reasonable attempt to inform the uploaders to let them secure a model release and add it to the media information. I think something like that was done when we went to town on images that didn't have a specified rationale of use. None of these is an argument against, as such, just pointing out some of the ramifications that might follow. My guess is that after a lot of existing images were removed, the ratio of new images uploaded would infact be skewed *in* *favor* of amateur images, rather than *against*. I could be wrong of course. It still might be worth doing just for its own sake. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: I think my unwritten assumption was that amateurs might not in all cases know what is required, but professionals do -- as a default; the professionals who don't, not deserving the name. I think deep down it comes down to the profit motive. Enthusiasts rarely are governed by it, so they give freely. I would imagine that if some amateur photographer in the process of donating their images learned more about model releases and all that jazz, they would infact be grateful, and more motivated than ever to "pay forward" for the learning experience. Certainly it has been my personal experience writing on wikipedia, that as I learn more, the more I feel an obligation to pay forward, for what I have recieved. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: I don't actually mind this proposal, and would like it myself for a lot of pages. But I'm not sure naked people are actually at the top of the list (perhaps someone should try to determine it empirically via some sort of research on our readers?). If I personally were to list two kinds of images I would want hidden by default, it'd be: 1. spiders; and 2. gory medical conditions. Do I get that option? Do I get that option if more than x% of readers agree? -Mark

Delirium wrote: Ooh! Can I play? Beside those two, 3. people with perfect teeth smiling, 4. charred bodies, 5. decomposing bodies, 6. women with Double-D breasts -- or above, whether fully clothed or not, 7. any women with silicone implants, 8. tele-evangelists, 9. "big hair", 10. Disco, including people dressed "Disco-style", 11. Ku Kux Klansmen, 12. images of any foods made from liver, 13. sauerkraut, 14. suet, 15. lard, 16. skinned animals that haven't been fully butchered yet (including humans), ... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Tim's post is excellent. However there is a viewpoint on this issue that is important to me personally that I feel is not well represented by his spectrum. To the extent that Tim's spectrum does represent me, I am probably moderate. I recognize that some people (e.g. the conservatives) find certain content undesirable and I would gladly give them the tools to self-filter that content if they wished. Since conservatives are a major segment of the population, I also think it is pragmatic for public relations reasons to avoid collecting large numbers of redundant and/or unused images that have the potential to offend such people. However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the people in them. I place a high value on not doing harm to the models pictured. This is essentially a consent issue. If the model is a well-known porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no problem. However, many of the sexual images we receive depict non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct. If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine too. However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have no idea how their image is being used. Even if the person pictured consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by millions. At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image are often very lax. With regards to "self-made" images, we often take a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible. In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue of biographies of living persons. For a long time we treated those articles more or less the same as all other articles. However, eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards, especially in the case of negative or private information. I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content. (Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential for embarrassment or other harm.) Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which would require no special treatment. Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget the potential to harm the people in the images. -Robert Rohde

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde &lt;rarohde(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I would like to second this particular point, though I am largely inclusionist in the larger debate here. I handled an OTRS case in which exactly this happened; a ex-boyfriend stole a camera which a female college student had taken private nude pictures, posted them to Flickr, then someone copied them to Wikipedia to illustrate one of our sex-related articles (for which, the specific picture was reasonably educational/on topic/appropriate). The student was extremely upset and angry about each of these abuses of her privacy and property. This is probably the exception rather than the rule, but it is worth keeping in mind. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Samuel Klein wrote: Do you not avoid the problem by simply not accepting photographs from unapproved sources? Just because someone genuinely could upload a photograph of themselves and/or partner engaged in some sexual activity is no reason to accept such images. Flickr delete accounts all the time for revenge postings. Where private photos of ex-partners are uploaded to flickr and posted into the adult groups, sometimes with contact data. A problem with images on wikimedia is that they have a free license, which gives them a life outside of wikimedia. I'm reminded of the 14 yo that had a self portrait used as the art work for a porn DVD, the distributor saying that it was found on a PD image site. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen-5… Also last week in the UK a Press Complaint Commission said that "A magazine did not intrude into a young woman's privacy when it published photos that she had uploaded to social networking site Bebo when she was 15 because the images had already been widely circulated online." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/13/bebo_loaded/ So one may find that once an image is widely circulated on the internet the person featured losses any rights to privacy over such images. Surely one could source representative images from the porn industry.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Some thoughts, not aiming at anybody in particular. The pressure from Fox News, the childish founders' jealousies, the void FBI threats, the "patriarch complex" of Mr. Wales, if they're real, should be of no inflated importance. Our personal tastes about what images we like and which we don't should be of little weigh compared to what is at stake. Wikipedia and its sister projects are making history. They're forging a century-lasting [[Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity]]. For the first time in its existence, humanity has a tool to break free from ignorance and manipulation. These projects are giving freedom of choice for every human. (but ok, it may take centuries) We should remember the big picture from time to time.