[Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> 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.

We do: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

Though I'd generally support a strengthening of those terms wrt nudity
or sexual situations... we already do, though it's not so clearly
expressed there.

> 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.

LonelygirlUk.
"Oh yes, Thats me— I consent to being naked on the internet"

We're kind screwed with respect to your hypothetical, but we should
still do due diligence.

[snip]
> 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 case is particularly relevant because many other "upload whatever
you want" sites won't accept the nudity, hide it behind account
registration. The only site coming to mind that will is eroshare, but
your revenge image surrounded by hardcore porn may not be the effect
you were trying to achieve.

[snip]
> 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.

The usefulness of most of our human sexuality images for such purposes
is far from indisputable.  A good sex manual would seek to maximize
its educational value by minimizing the unnecessary shock and
perception of prurience of their images.  This is a major factor in
why EnWP has historically used drawings for most sex position
articles.

I'm all for aggressively defending material which serves an
educational purpose.  But commons is not a porno gallery.
Commons:Scope is quite clear on our mission. We may include sexually
related imagery but only in an effort to fulfill our mission.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Proof made harder by the fact that we're already fairly aggressive in
deleting the most inappropriate activity. :)