[Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content
thepmaccount at gmail.com
Fri Apr 24 05:45:10 UTC 2009
ps. for my proposal see;
pps. the general reception for that particular proposal was that I'm a bit
of a crazy person.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com>wrote:
> Here are some pointers to commons discussions;
> - the commons policy on nudity, more focused on whether or not content is
> useful than things like permissions.
> - mentions 'moral issues', but media generated from a distance can (and
> are) argued to be non identifiable. This guideline would further seem not to
> apply to material which doesn't feature the face (upskirt, downblouse,
> closeup of boob etc.)
> Further - the rationale for the outcome of a discussion is often rather
> unpredictable - see
> for a beach shot which was deleted, and
> for a beach shot which was kept.
> It's my view that the later image should be deleted. Thoughts?
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Last post on this thread.
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com>
>> > There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means
>> > permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also
>> > which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
>> > captured.
>> Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this? I haven't seen
>> anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
>> image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
>> suggesting one does not.
>> > The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
>> > galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
>> > 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
>> I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
>> useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
>> them. you can leave out this tangent.
>> > I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography
>> > nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the
>> > permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting
>> > the media should be deleted.
>> I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
>> leave out that comment entirely. Permission of subject should be
>> assessed, period. If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
>> archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.
>> An aside on work-safety:
>> Earlier, John wrote:
>> > While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
>> > we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
>> > that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:
>> I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
>> I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
>> context. What I was suggesting is:
>> - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
>> don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
>> minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
>> It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
>> media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context. [for any given image or
>> block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l