[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

[Ryan Kaldari]

Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well 
discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus 
around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial 
images. For example, although it may be perfectly fine to include an 
image of nude bondage in the "BDSM" article, you probably wouldn't want 
it included in the "Rope" article, and almost certainly not in the "Play 
(activity)" article. Similarly, you probably wouldn't want to feature an 
image of Osama Bin Laden on the en.wiki Main Page on 9/11. Right now, we 
rely solely on the discretion of our editors to make sure images are 
used in appropriate contexts. It would be useful if we actually had a 
policy we could point to if an editor happened to have a catastrophic 
loss of discretion. Something simple like: "Potentially objectionable 
images should only be used in contexts for which they are directly 
relevant and appropriate. In addition, the use of potentially 
objectionable images in contexts such as Picture of the Day, Random 
Picture of the Day, Today's featured picture, etc. should be avoided as 
these uses generally do not provide adequate context for such images."

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/22/10 1:57 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
>> R M Harris
>> .. but the time has come, I think, to actively begin a discussion
>> within the communities about some of the questions which I've
>> encountered, specifically around Commons and images within Commons. ...
>> I look forward to the comments of any of you who wish to join the
>> discussion.
>>      
> [Delurking briefly]
>
> 	Me n'th, endorsing the idea expressed by many others, that
> another generic public discussion of these issues will be of dubious
> utility. At some point, it's all been said, and as the saying goes,
> it's "pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement, where used to lie the
> carcass of a dead horse."
>
> 	The various factions are known. I suppose you have to do this
> in order to say you've consulted with the community. But for heaven's
> sake, can it at least be done at a level better than yet another rehash?
>
> [Relurking]
>
>