[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

[Thomas Dalton]

>   - In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be
>   rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or
>   permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.

Perhaps you explain this in your essays (it's late and I have to be up
early, so please excuse me not reading them!), but how do you intend
to do that? The only reliable information we really have is the photo
itself - we can guess the age by looking at the subject and if the
subject is clearly posing we can be reasonably sure they intended the
photo to be taken, but that's all. I don't see how we can possibly be
rigorous about it.

> I'd like to illustrate by drawing your attention to two images currently
> being discussed on the 'Commons' project;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and

Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it
usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on
"utility". I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since
the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a
public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be
better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of
posing would ruin the photo - it would turn it from topless sunbathing
to glamour modelling, a completely different topic). So I think this
photo is appropriate.

> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg

I struggle to see any value in that photo. There are plenty of other
photos to illustrate miniskirts in general and I don't think
highlighting this particular risk in wearing such clothing really
requires illustration. So that rates low on "utility". It also rates
low on "potential for harm" since it is almost impossible to identify
the subject (it rates slightly higher due to being accidental, albeit
reckless, rather than intentional as the sunbathing was, but that is
overruled by the fact that you can't identify the subject). I think
this photo falls into the "Virtually harmless, but what's the point of
causing any harm at all?" category.