[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[Robert Rohde]

Tim's post is excellent.  However there is a viewpoint on this issue
that is important to me personally that I feel is not well represented
by his spectrum.

To the extent that Tim's spectrum does represent me, I am probably
moderate.  I recognize that some people (e.g. the conservatives) find
certain content undesirable and I would gladly give them the tools to
self-filter that content if they wished.  Since conservatives are a
major segment of the population, I also think it is pragmatic for
public relations reasons to avoid collecting large numbers of
redundant and/or unused images that have the potential to offend such
people.


However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
Tim's spectrum.  Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
people in them.  I place a high value on not doing harm to the models
pictured.

This is essentially a consent issue.  If the model is a well-known
porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no
problem.  However, many of the sexual images we receive depict
non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct.
If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine
too.  However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have
no idea how their image is being used.  Even if the person pictured
consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified
at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by
millions.

At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image
are often very lax.  With regards to "self-made" images, we often take
a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible.

In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue
of biographies of living persons.  For a long time we treated those
articles more or less the same as all other articles.  However,
eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living
persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards,
especially in the case of negative or private information.

I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially
embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where
we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a
stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content.
(Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be
done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people
should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential
for embarrassment or other harm.)

Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living
people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which
would require no special treatment.


Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at
least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget
the potential to harm the people in the images.

-Robert Rohde