[WikiEN-l] Jimbo on Commons

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean at me.com> wrote:
>> Fwiw, I've long thought the presence of graphic sexual pictures on
>> Commons, and certainly in Wikipedia, does more harm than good,
>> because it means the site "can't be trusted" in the eyes of
>> librarians, teachers, etc etc.
>
> So, in other words, it's a good idea to have rules based on what
> people think of us. Perhaps you have other reasons for thinking that
> we shouldn't have graphic images on Wikipedia, but since this is only
> one that you have expressed, it's the only one I will respond to. I
> respectfully disagree. What John Q. Public thinks should only be a
> minor factor in Wikipedian policy, NOT the deciding factor.

Sure, but the opposite is also the case here. It is the uploads from
John Q. Public showing their take on graphic imagery (user-supplied
graphic imagery, remember, not professionally produced graphic
imagery) that has caused much of the problems here. The distinction is
between *anyone* being able to *edit* the encyclopedia and anyone
being able to *produce* graphic content *potentially* for use in an
encyclopedia. There is a difference there.

Normally, such graphic content is commissioned by experienced editors
and produced professionally and carefully selected for inclusion or
exclusion based on carefully considered factors (in the publishing
industry, such pictures are referred to as "editorial use only"). What
we have on Commons is the editorial community taking on the role of
editor, and the wider public being encouraged to submit a range of
images that will be looked at and selected for use in articles. Put
simply, for graphic content, user-generated content with little or no
restrictions may not be the best model.

> Sometimes a graphic sexual or anatomical image is warranted for
> educational purposes. If anything, that would mean that teachers and
> librarians should trust us more (albeit sometimes secretly due to
> workplace politics or policies), since we aren't afraid to, for
> example, have an article about a famous, explicit painting, and to
> also have that painting in the article.

Yah. But don't forget that some pornography is art and some art is
pornography. The two are not exclusive. There are some famous artists
who have produced erotic imagery, but although their work is clearly
art, it is also clearly pornography, especially when the art is
removed from its context and collected together as a collection of
images that can be browsed in a single category on Commons. If you
want to illustrate that artist's style, *one* image would be enough.
If you want to demonstrate the style of the book in which the artworks
appeared, *one* image would be enough. To scan *all* the images and
put them in a category on Commons is tantamount to re-publishing the
book (as a work of pornography), rather than commenting in an
encyclopedic manner on the artworks or the artist.

> Should the policies
> surrounding such images need to be clarified? Sure. But regardless of
> the chanting of "Think of the children!", we need to not ban such
> images entirely.

It is not a choice between all the images or none, despite what those
holding extreme positions on either side will say. The real choice,
the difficult one, is to say "we absolutely need some of these images,
but we don't need all of them". We, as a community (or rather, the
Commons community), need to be mature and thoughtful enough to be able
to exercise judgment and say "we will use these images for these
reasons, and we will decide not to use these images for these
reasons". As long as the reasoning is sound, and the attitude of "it
might be educational, so it is OK" is replaced with one of "is this
really needed and do we have something similar already?" and "is
user-generated content appropriate for this topic, or should we be
looking for content produced by professionals to professional
standards?", then it should be possible to get the right answers here.

Carcharoth