[Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance

[David Moran]

I think first what would be required was that it be convincingly
demonstrated that "inappropriate use" of sexual imagery on Commons was in
fact a problem before we start crafting deletion policies to deal with it.

FMF




On 12/10/08, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:22 AM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> > currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> > readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> > Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes
> far
> > in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point
> of
> > commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
> > repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
> > image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose
> can
> > only be beneficial.
> >
> > If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead
> and
> > delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion
> based
> > on an image's use.
>
> Considerations of personal privacy don't apply to pictures of fruit or
> airplanes.  Images of identifiable people posing are intrinsically
> different and deserve to be treated with greater sceptism.
>
> If you don't like a use standard, I'd be happy to accept an OTRS
> standard for identifiable nudes, but I do think we need to recognize
> that not all images have equal impact.  Is it useful to have 500
> poorly documented pictures of naked women, maybe.  Is it harmful to
> have 1 image inappropriately uploaded by an angry ex-boyfriend,
> absolutely.  If we can help prevent the latter circumstance by
> reducing the number of poorly documented (and often unused) nude
> photos on Commons, then I am all for it, regardless of how you want to
> approach it.
>
> Perhaps because I suggested "use" as a limitation, you misunderstood
> my goal.  My intent is to prevent the misuse of Commons to store and
> distribute images inappropriately, by which I mean images not
> authorized for distribution by all the parties involved.  This is an
> area where I think we would lose little if we removed images we aren't
> using (speculations about sex manuals notwithstanding), but if you
> want to take different steps to minimize inappropriate use then by all
> means suggest what they should be.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>