Mailing List Archive

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:39 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>wrote:

> G'day all,
>
> This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post,
> I
> apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for
> proposing
> policy <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content>,
> flooding
> and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope you'll
> forgive me one post to this list, on this issue.
>
> I believe Wikimedia is currently behaving rather irresponsibly in this
> area,
> and believe that, for various reasons, a calm examination of the issues is
> difficult. I have written a rather light-hearted, though serious minded and
> 'not safe for work' essay about this on the english wikipedia
> here<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Let%27s_talk_about_sex>-
> but would like to specifically raise the following points which
> represent
> my perspective;
>
>
> - Wikimedia should not be censored at all - Legal images and media of all
> types should be freely available to use, and re-use.
> - 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.
>
> 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
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg
>
> It's my belief that hosting these images without the subject's permission
> shifts the balance of utility vs. potential for harm towards recommending
> the images be deleted. I'd love to hear your thoughts :-)
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter
> PM.
>

I've always been a big proponent of using common sense,
but it seems like this no longer applies. I can arguably see
a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds
no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hardly
acceptable anyway. What happened to descriptive file
names?).

With regards to nude/erotic photos, I would implore Commons
(and other projects) adopt a policy helping in this regard. Commons
is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free.

I guess to summarize: just because you can, doesn't mean you
should.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> - 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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>
> 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.
>

Couple of (very) quick responses;

It's my view that the decision to sunbathe topless (or naked, or whatever)
at a public beach does not equate to consent to publish an image to a
wikimedia project. This may or may not be widely held - I dunno.

In terms of 'how to apply rigour' - I think the first stage is to agree
whether rigour is necesary or not, and whether it's lacking or not (I'd say
'yes' and 'yes') - I have indeed suggested some specific ways, but the start
point is to ensure the uploader submits such information - they don't
currently.

The benefits of some sort of 'descriptive image tagging' to allow for
greater project utility are a whole other kettle of fish - the idea of
developing a 'sexual content' flag (or any other tag) is thoroughly rejected
currently, for reasons which I believe relate more to the ability of the
communities to engage in functional discourse more than the merits of the
proposal (but hey - I'm an advocate, so I would say that, right? :-)

cheers,

Peter
PM.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

private musings wrote:
>> G'day all,
>>
>> This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this
>> post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia
>> projects for proposing policy
>> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content>, flooding
>> and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope
>> you'll forgive me one post to this list, on this issue.
>>
>> I believe Wikimedia is currently behaving rather irresponsibly in
>> this area, and believe that, for various reasons, a calm examination
>> of the issues is difficult. I have written a rather light-hearted,
>> though serious minded and 'not safe for work' essay about this on
>> the english wikipedia
>> here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/Let%27s_talk_about_sex>-
>> but would like to specifically raise the following points which
>> represent
>> my perspective;
>>
>>
>> - Wikimedia should not be censored at all - Legal images and media
>> of all types should be freely available to use, and re-use.
>> - 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.
>>
>> 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
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg
>>
>> It's my belief that hosting these images without the subject's
>> permission shifts the balance of utility vs. potential for harm
>> towards recommending the images be deleted. I'd love to hear your
>> thoughts :-)
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>> PM.

Regardless of the permission of the subject (which, as far as UK law is
concerned in relation to non-public figures, is extremely moot), I note that
these images appear to be orphaned, and even if they were not, my test would
be of "encyclopedic purpose".

There are plenty of topless images around, and also upshots. If any reader
is really ignorant of either, I'm not sure Wikipedia shouold be filling that
gap gratuitously. The text of relevant articles should be enough to turn the
balance away from necessarily requiring an image. We don't exist to supplant
the imagination, but to inform, in an academic style.

As for harm, I don't see it. The point should be whether the image does
something that text can't. In the case of these images, and although I fully
support images apposite to a topic under discussion, neither is harmful, nor
particularly informative.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post,
> I
> apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for
> proposing
> policy <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content>,
> flooding
> and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I hope you'll
> forgive me one post to this list, on this issue.
> <snip>

I'd love to hear your thoughts :-)
>

Stop. Your latest proposal was comprehensively and unanimously rejected on
commons[1] and the previous attempt received a similar response on en.wp[2].
This post mixes unrelated issues (policy vs permissions vs deletions), looks
a lot like inappropriate canvassing[3], and it's not even clear that you
have any justification for your assertion about "hosting these images
without the subject's permission".

Thanks,

Sam

1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Oppose
2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sexual_content/old#Removed_this_yet_again
3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_canvassing
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right
as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it
further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/30 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
> Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right
> as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it
> further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding.

Sure, he has the right to post. However, forum shopping (if that is
indeed what this is, and it does look that way) is generally frowned
upon (mainly because it's a waste of everyone's time, including the
poster's).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Forum shopping typically describes someone going from forum to forum trying
to get a different decision on some particular thing they want. In this
case, I don't think privatemusings is looking for a specific outcome (like
deleting an image, achieving a block, influencing an AfD, etc.). The object
is, and has been, to raise awareness of this as a significant issue.

The general subject was discussed recently in more detail on Jimmy's en.wp
talkpage. That discussion can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_43#BLP_and_images.
Some other things addressed in that section are userspace galleries of
explicit images under headings like "hot" "admiration of the female form"
etc.

Nathan

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/1/30 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
> > Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much
> right
> > as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss
> it
> > further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or
> responding.
>
> Sure, he has the right to post. However, forum shopping (if that is
> indeed what this is, and it does look that way) is generally frowned
> upon (mainly because it's a waste of everyone's time, including the
> poster's).
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Two comments:

Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
> 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.
>
The subjects aren't identified, but they are identifiable. They indeed
chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach, but being naked is a very
context-sensitive thing. A public beach is public, but it is still
unlikely, that you will be seen by people you know. That's very
different from being on the internets.

> 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).
"almost impossible to identify"... If I would know that girl, I would
recognize her. You don't need to see a face to recognize somebody you
know. This image is indeed harmless, it's just a little flick of slip.
Embarassing, but not the "humiliating" kind of embarassing, but more the
"oops" kind. But we have other ones on our projects, that are more harmful.

Marcus Buck

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

"Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free."

What's the difference?

FMF


On 1/29/09, Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org> wrote:
>
> Two comments:
>
> Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
> > 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.
> >
> The subjects aren't identified, but they are identifiable. They indeed
> chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach, but being naked is a very
> context-sensitive thing. A public beach is public, but it is still
> unlikely, that you will be seen by people you know. That's very
> different from being on the internets.
>
> > 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).
> "almost impossible to identify"... If I would know that girl, I would
> recognize her. You don't need to see a face to recognize somebody you
> know. This image is indeed harmless, it's just a little flick of slip.
> Embarassing, but not the "humiliating" kind of embarassing, but more the
> "oops" kind. But we have other ones on our projects, that are more harmful.
>
> Marcus Buck
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
> ground for all media that happens to be free."
>
> What's the difference?

"Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence,
with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground"
implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without
regard to their presumed usefulness.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather
than the images themselves.

DM




On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard <pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > "Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a
> dumping
> > ground for all media that happens to be free."
> >
> > What's the difference?
>
> "Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence,
> with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground"
> implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without
> regard to their presumed usefulness.
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>wrote:

> That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather
> than the images themselves.
>
> DM
>
>
>
>
> On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard <pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > "Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a
> > dumping
> > > ground for all media that happens to be free."
> > >
> > > What's the difference?
> >
> > "Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence,
> > with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground"
> > implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without
> > regard to their presumed usefulness.
> >
> > --
> > Yours cordially,
> > Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>

Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
considered
that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining
culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their
habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant. Hosting
a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline
voyeurism.

If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
> hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
> considered
> that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining
> culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical events,
> places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their
> habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant. Hosting
> a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline
> voyeurism.
>
> If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
>
> -Chad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com>wrote:

> voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
> > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
> > considered
> > that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining
> > culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
> events,
> > places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their
> > habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
> Hosting
> > a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline
> > voyeurism.
> >
> > If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
> >
> > -Chad
>

Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the
sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image
without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said:
just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should.

Quality over quantity.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should."

For what reason, specifically?

FMF


On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
> > > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
> > > considered
> > > that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
> remaining
> > > culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
> > events,
> > > places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their
> > > habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
> > Hosting
> > > a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
> borderline
> > > voyeurism.
> > >
> > > If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> >
>
> Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the
> sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image
> without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said:
> just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
> mean we should.
>
> Quality over quantity.
>
> -Chad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>wrote:

> "just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
> mean we should."
>
> For what reason, specifically?
>
> FMF
>
>
> On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I
> would
> > > > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
> > > > considered
> > > > that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
> > remaining
> > > > culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
> > > events,
> > > > places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their
> > > > habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
> > > Hosting
> > > > a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
> > borderline
> > > > voyeurism.
> > > >
> > > > If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
> > > >
> > > > -Chad
> > >
> >
> > Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the
> > sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image
> > without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said:
> > just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
> > mean we should.
> >
> > Quality over quantity.
> >
> > -Chad
>

What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get
in the first 100?

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many
images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of
image I am aware of.

FMF


On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > "just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
> > mean we should."
> >
> > For what reason, specifically?
> >
> > FMF
> >
> >
> > On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I
> > would
> > > > > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I
> always
> > > > > considered
> > > > > that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
> > > remaining
> > > > > culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as
> historical
> > > > events,
> > > > > places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people,
> their
> > > > > habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally
> relevant.
> > > > Hosting
> > > > > a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
> > > borderline
> > > > > voyeurism.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Chad
> > > >
> > >
> > > Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the
> > > sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image
> > > without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said:
> > > just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
> > > mean we should.
> > >
> > > Quality over quantity.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> >
>
> What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get
> in the first 100?
>
> -Chad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
> that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
> multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many
> images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of
> image I am aware of.
>

So what are you arguing? Say something real instead of arguing semantics. I
don't know about everyone else reading this list, but my patience for
philosophical and largely irrelevant tangents sidetracking serious
discussions is wearing thin. Are you arguing that Commons should permit as
many sexually explicit images of as many different situations and angles as
people could possibly hope to post? (Assuming the uploaders take the bold
step of marking it as "free"). Should we take no steps to protect people who
have no wish to have their photos published worldwide on a site owned by a
charity devoted to knowledge? Do you prefer that we not even ask uploaders
if the image subjects are over 18?

To some people Commons is meant to host absolutely anything free that people
like to upload. To some of those people, and to others, trying to place
restrictions of any sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism
and censorship. To me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
Wikimedia has a reputation that is crucial to its larger goals; making
images of naked young women accessible worldwide, for years, in a place
where they may never notice does not serve that reputation. When "commons
community members in good standing" keep personal galleries of these types
of images in their userspace, and that is the only use to which those images
are being put, then whose goals are being served?

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of any
> sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship. To
> me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
>

Re-reading myself, cultural relativism is not the correct description. If
anything, its decried most often as moral absolutism or an assertion of
cultural superiority. Obviously I disagree with that view. The way I see it,
we as members of the Wikimedia community have a responsibility to not do
harm. This principle, in a necessarily nuanced form, is embodied in the
English Wikipedia policy governing biographies of living people - and it is
past time that the core ideal of taking steps to protect others from being
hurt by our work is extended to images.

Nathan



--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal "harm".

FMF




On 1/29/09, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of
> any
> > sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship.
> To
> > me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
> >
>
> Re-reading myself, cultural relativism is not the correct description. If
> anything, its decried most often as moral absolutism or an assertion of
> cultural superiority. Obviously I disagree with that view. The way I see
> it,
> we as members of the Wikimedia community have a responsibility to not do
> harm. This principle, in a necessarily nuanced form, is embodied in the
> English Wikipedia policy governing biographies of living people - and it is
> past time that the core ideal of taking steps to protect others from being
> hurt by our work is extended to images.
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
> --
> Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
> today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Moran hett schreven:
> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
> idea that sexual images equal "harm".
>
> FMF
>
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about
deleting sexual images where it is clear, that the depicted person
agrees to the depiction. We are only talking about images, where the
depicted person is not aware of being published and/or has not agreed to
it. People usually don't agree on being published cause they fear to
experience some kind of "harm" if that would be done.

Marcus Buck

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org> wrote:
> David Moran hett schreven:
>> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea that sexual images equal "harm".
>
> Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
> far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about
> deleting sexual images where it is clear, that the depicted person
> agrees to the depiction.

Is it ever clear "that the depicted person agrees to the depiction"?
Perhaps they did agree to the depiction but not to its public posting?
Conversely, perhaps those who aren't facing and smiling at the camera
agreed to the shot before/after it was taken?

I tend to agree with David - there is no reason to treat sexual
content differently from any other. A "harmless" photo taken at a
political rally could well do more "harm"...

Sam

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
> idea that sexual images equal "harm".
>
> FMF

The two are not necessarily equal. There are plenty of people who,
upon finding a nude picture of themselves on Wikipedia, won't be too
offended or hurt by it. However, there is the potential for harm in
many other cases. Do a google search for "girlfriend revenge" (if you
are old enough to be looking at such stuff, NSFW) and you will see my
point: People post private nude images of other people on the internet
as an act of hate and revenge. It's also along the same lines as the
various celebrity sex tapes that get released: People take these
videos in private, they get stolen or released by vengeful ex-lovers,
and causes extreme embarrassment for some people.

Nude images do not necessarily equal "harm" by themselves, but they
have a higher potential to do so if the uploader is being abusive then
most other types of images. A picture of a nude 16 year-old and a
picture of a nude 18 year-old person may look very similar, although
the former would be considered child pornography and the later would
not be. An image intended for private viewing in a romantic couple may
appear to show a consenting model, but consenting only in the context
of that private relationship.

I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any
nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions
about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of
consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken?
Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?)
could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not
just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP
the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being
depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with
these images.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l