G'day all,
I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation
lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice
I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words
and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.)
Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related
questions is gently dying down -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_C…
and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt
the 'sexual content' policy proposal -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.…
What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or not
media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that all
of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - you
can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition
retrospectively, and maybe not at all -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_del…
I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual content,
and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&o…
The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and
generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more
outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to
share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles sexual
content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming
poll....
cheers,
Peter,
PM.