[Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

[David Goodman]

Presumably you mean nude female breast, and then you are involved with
exactly the "nudity" definition dilemma you allude to. If you mean
nude or clothed, Every full or half length picture of a woman seen
from the front or side contains a depiction of the female breast.
As another consideration, If we are   out to describe the image, we
would need to put in an tag for nude male breast also, and presumably
other sometimes uncovered parts of the body, like the  hand.
Otherwise we are concentrating on tagging those portions of images
that are sexually charged, and the only reason for doing that
preferentially is to facilitate censorship. (or to  facilitate access
by those who want sexually charged material over those who want access
to other kinds of material). Neither is an appropriate function for a
free encyclopedia.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:27 PM, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Derk-jan,
>>
>> As for 1), I think youtube can be compared in populairity and size with
>> wikipedia, and in videos surpasses commons.
>> Youtube enables its visitors to tag videos as adult.
>
> I think there is a difference between using tags/categories like
> "contains the depiction of a female breast" or "contains a portrait of
> Muhammad" and "suitable for adults only" or "offensive to Islam". The
> first way is an objective categorisation, and I see nothing wrong in
> someone else using such categorisation to censor contents, while the
> second way is too much culture dependent. Even a concept like "nudity"
> strongly depends on culture, so I wouldn't use it as a categorisation.
> Cruccone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>