2010/1/14 David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>om>: Indeed. The video basically comes across as a threat to try to drum up a moral panic against Wikimedia. - d.

somewhat taken aback by a few of the pics in that video... are we ever going to have an article called "gay facial"?

Are you saying that you will be surprised if you find out that we have one?

Hello! It is clear that much of sex-related multimedia stored in our project is of a very low quality, not meeting our requirements and needs. Often, it doesn't provide what we are looking for - high quality information. I propose to start a project which would encourage, by a form of contest and rewards, high quality (that means technical quality, usefulness for education, aesthetic value etc...) multimedia which could be used in our projects. Such multimedia can easily replace current low quality content. Once we will have multimedia excellently covering something particular, we can easily reject anything else trying to cover the same. And nobody could blame us for hosting bad images anymore. I understand that some people can say "we don't support porn" now. But this won't be porn but information! Our projects must cover also sex-related matters. We have to look for high quality multimedia for this area of knowledge as well as for others. There are projects supporting taking photographs of municipalities etc... Why not to use similar ways for improving this? I don't propose intentionally how such a project should decide what exactly the multimedia in the contest should depict nor how exactly the contest should be arranged. I feel this should be defined by a broader community. I only propose to use a new internet domain for this purpose in order to keep not yet chosen materials out of our projects until they are awarded. Don't forget that sex-related articles are the most viewed ones in Wikipedia. We need the high quality content in this field too, not to wait until somebody uploads something which could be useful. Also a license and personal rights are quite often an issue for sex-related multimedia. All this can be solved and we could obtain the best sex-related multimedia among all encyclopedias. Best regards, Jiri wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/ImagesUsedInVideoPresentat… -- * . . . ... . M45 .. M1 . # . * . . Jiri Hofman . . Opiskelijankatu 38 B28 . * Tampere . ** 33720 ¤. . Finland **. * . . . . * * . . . * . . . * . * * . * gsm: +358504661860 . . +358504384197 * . http://www.aldebaran.cz/~hofmanj <http://www.aldebaran.cz/%7Ehofmanj> . * _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2010/1/14 Jiří Hofman &lt;hofmanj(a)aldebaran.cz&gt;cz>: That isn't clear to me. Could you elaborate?

Or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions , one of the most viewed pages of English Wikipedia. Do you think the images there are of excellent quality? I don't.

As for the link, showing these in greatly enlarged versions, without the context of the articles in which they are used, is setting up a strong bias. We've never engaged in that use of the material, nor

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:05 AM, private musings &lt;thepmaccount(a)gmail.com&gt;

> G'day all, > I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit > images on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on > with dull mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm > trying to be a bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. > It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, > and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to > see what the general feeling is out there.... what I'd really like is for > the foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation > may be necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits > of some regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the > advisory board, might also be interested in offering some thoughts / > recommendations too. I've used a selection of explicit images from > Commons, so please only click through if you're over the age of majority; > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n > ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where > 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed > - is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an > exemption to these requirements?

2010/1/13 private musings &lt;thepmaccount(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Come on, even *I* would have given up on this argument by now... you're not going to win... If you think there are legal concerns, email Mike Godwin.

2010/1/14 Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model holding their passport and a sign saying "I consent to pictures of me naked to be used for any purpose" in a few dozen languages? That doesn't sound practical to me...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't see that it is that unpractical. The language barrier is the most significant problem, but model releases are routine for professional photographers. It may be more difficult for amateur uploaders, but this only applies to sexually explicit photographs and the standard of attention to the rights of subjects may be more important than the convenience of amateur photographers in this area. Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Here's another concerning aspect of management of explicit media on WMF; It's been asserted that images of a 16 year old girl masturbating have been uploaded to commons; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic eboard/Incidents&oldid=338426080#User:Misty_Willows_problematic_images The image in question has been deleted from commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_mastu rbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 ..and I think it's also been oversighted. Lar, a commons oversighter, muses over on wikipedia review whether or not continuing to fight fires caused by systemic problems is the right thing to do; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28221&view=findpo… 072 The general issue is of course important, but I hope in the short term, that the image in question can be properly deleted - restricting it to oversighters only remains, in my view, likely to be illegal - it really would be best for that image to be removed by a dev. Maybe this is underway as I type? Hope so!

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM, John Vandenberg &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > iirc, there is already a mediawiki capability for images to be > completely removed from the servers. > > I can't see this capability in the sysop tools, so maybe I only imagined it. > > Is that capability still available?  Which users have access to it? > > If it is part of the software, I think oversighters should have access to it.

That was rewritten ages ago to allow the files to be kept and undeleted and need be (so in theory they are now only removed from accessible part of the software, not the file system), they would need to be kept and not destroyed if they were brought you in court/criminal proceedings because they would become evidence.

(hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is not "real" child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, in New South Wales, Australia).

I'm more raising the issue that what could be child pornography remains available to wmf volunteers with 'oversight' op.s on commons - I don't think