Mailing List Archive

This one's been discussed ad nauseam already, and I think the community's
discussions pretty unambiguously tend towards keep.

FMF



On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:

> My opinion on this is clear: Commons should welcome both photographs
> and pictures. Whether a project shows a picture or a photograph should
> be the project's decision, not that of Commons. Some may prefer one,
> others the other. Sexuality is in scope on Wikimedia projects, so its
> images are in scope at Commons.
>
> Andre
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:03 AM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > g'day all,
> >
> > There's an interesting deletion discussion taking place here;
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png
> >
> > concerning an image of a woman with sperm on her neck. To my mind it's
> very
> > doubtful that this is in fact a freely licensed image, but regardless of
> my
> > cynicism, the IP who nominated the image for deletion (the 5th time it's
> > been nominated, and the 4th time was by me, in December) raised the
> > possibility that we (both commons, wikipedia, and perhaps by extension
> all
> > wmf projects) might be better to opt for drawings rather than photographs
> of
> > sexual activity?
> >
> > I'm sure many are familiar with my view that the foundation is an acutely
> > irresponsible host in this area (I'm not a fan, for example, of the
> pictures
> > taken of topless women on beaches without their permission which commons
> > currently hosts) - but wonder what the feeling is out there in regard to
> > freely licensed images of people having sex - we've currently got quite a
> > few on commons, and it's likely to be a growth area. There's a dirty pun
> in
> > there somewhere, but I can't be bothered to make it......
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Peter
> > PM.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commons-l mailing list
> > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re : This having been discussed, and my opinions being vigorously shot down
- well yes, both you and Mike are largely correct - which to my mind is
actually cause for concern for the sensibly minded - it's also my opinion
that there's many such folk out there - many of whom choose not to get
involved in discussions like this because of their unsavory nature (/me
waves at various correspondents ;-)

I believe that this is an example of principle overriding pragmatism in a
way that has great potential to cause the project harm - both in reputation
and utility. If you're reading this and are a bit confuddled about the
parameters of discussion in this area - here are some handy bullet points;


- Commons currently hosts many pictures, taken in a public place, without
the apparent permission of the subject, of various folk in various states of
undress (think topless women at the beach as the best example) - I think
this is inappropriate and disrespectful, though undoubtedly legal.
- Commons hosts pictures (such as the one linked to upthread) which seem
highly unlikely to me to be genuinely released under a free licence, with
the much more likely explanation that a n'eer do well has cheekily stolen a
pic from some website - I believe good faith is often exploited in this
regard.
- Finally - commons, and various other wikimedia projects contain an ever
growing number of sexually explicit images (people having sex with each
other, and their friends, in various ways) - it's the clear consensus of
this thread (in my view) that this is desirable, supported by the community,
and in fact not really worth talking about at all. I have seen no
substantial discussion of ways to ameliorate any issues this position may
bring up (Record keeping requirements, children's access to images etc.)


thas' all :-)

cheers,

Peter,
PM.




On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>wrote:

> This one's been discussed ad nauseam already, and I think the community's
> discussions pretty unambiguously tend towards keep.
>
> FMF
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > My opinion on this is clear: Commons should welcome both photographs
> > and pictures. Whether a project shows a picture or a photograph should
> > be the project's decision, not that of Commons. Some may prefer one,
> > others the other. Sexuality is in scope on Wikimedia projects, so its
> > images are in scope at Commons.
> >
> > Andre
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:03 AM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > g'day all,
> > >
> > > There's an interesting deletion discussion taking place here;
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png
> > >
> > > concerning an image of a woman with sperm on her neck. To my mind it's
> > very
> > > doubtful that this is in fact a freely licensed image, but regardless
> of
> > my
> > > cynicism, the IP who nominated the image for deletion (the 5th time
> it's
> > > been nominated, and the 4th time was by me, in December) raised the
> > > possibility that we (both commons, wikipedia, and perhaps by extension
> > all
> > > wmf projects) might be better to opt for drawings rather than
> photographs
> > of
> > > sexual activity?
> > >
> > > I'm sure many are familiar with my view that the foundation is an
> acutely
> > > irresponsible host in this area (I'm not a fan, for example, of the
> > pictures
> > > taken of topless women on beaches without their permission which
> commons
> > > currently hosts) - but wonder what the feeling is out there in regard
> to
> > > freely licensed images of people having sex - we've currently got quite
> a
> > > few on commons, and it's likely to be a growth area. There's a dirty
> pun
> > in
> > > there somewhere, but I can't be bothered to make it......
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > >
> > > Peter
> > > PM.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Commons-l mailing list
> > > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I believe that this is an example of principle overriding pragmatism in a
> way that has great potential to cause the project harm - both in reputation
> and utility. If you're reading this and are a bit confuddled about the
> parameters of discussion in this area - here are some handy bullet points;
>
>
I recall hearing this very argument several years ago when wikipedia was
some orders of magnitude smaller
of course the empiric evidence shows otherwise, wikipedia grew beyond
anyone's predictions
in spite the "if you don't do X, things we downhill", "ikipedia will lose
all reputatin", "wikipedia will be harmed", "wikipedia will become useless"
where X ranges could e "censor nudity", "change the sysop election system"
or "stop anon edits", "delete pokemon" or whatever the
unsourmountable-obstacle-of-the-week is.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re : Masti - I agree with your position that if the license seems suspect,
and the contributor can't (or won't) provide something a bit more, then the
image should be deleted - that's not the consensus on commons however, for
what that's worth - these doubts have been raised, and the image remains.
The general thinking seems to be that the burden of proof lies with those
suspicious of the original license - I think this is a bit silly. Also - re
: quoting - I'm afraid I'm a 'gmailer' who only hits 'reply' to post again -
though I'm semi-aware that this does something wrong in regard to quoting,
I'm not sure what, nor how to fix it - my apologies.

Re : Pedro - heh... I take your point - doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about
the merits of the point at hand, though, no? If there's an improvement to be
made, that's gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion that it's also
important, I reckon....

cheers,

Peter
PM.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > I believe that this is an example of principle overriding pragmatism in a
> > way that has great potential to cause the project harm - both in
> reputation
> > and utility. If you're reading this and are a bit confuddled about the
> > parameters of discussion in this area - here are some handy bullet
> points;
> >
> >
> I recall hearing this very argument several years ago when wikipedia was
> some orders of magnitude smaller
> of course the empiric evidence shows otherwise, wikipedia grew beyond
> anyone's predictions
> in spite the "if you don't do X, things we downhill", "ikipedia will lose
> all reputatin", "wikipedia will be harmed", "wikipedia will become useless"
> where X ranges could e "censor nudity", "change the sysop election system"
> or "stop anon edits", "delete pokemon" or whatever the
> unsourmountable-obstacle-of-the-week is.
> _______________________________________________
> 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, May 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>wrote:

> Re : Pedro - heh... I take your point - doesn't mean we shouldn't talk
> about
> the merits of the point at hand, though, no? If there's an improvement to
> be
> made, that's gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion that it's also
> important, I reckon....
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter
>

No, it doesn't meanthat.
It means, if you're going to play the "the future of wikipedia is at stake"
then you better backup your hand with arguments and evidence
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

fair enough, Pedro - I certainly don't want any weight, in terms of
argument, placed on my opinion that this matters - I'd much rather stick to
the substantive issues of the matter at hand.... it's more about discussing
wether or not it's a problem that wmf hosts pic.s of topless chicks on the
beach without their permssion.. and other assorted problems with explicit
sexual images being easily accessible on wmf projects.

cheers,

Peter
PM.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Re : Pedro - heh... I take your point - doesn't mean we shouldn't talk
> > about
> > the merits of the point at hand, though, no? If there's an improvement to
> > be
> > made, that's gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion that it's
> also
> > important, I reckon....
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
> No, it doesn't meanthat.
> It means, if you're going to play the "the future of wikipedia is at stake"
> then you better backup your hand with arguments and evidence
> _______________________________________________
> 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

El 5/14/09 3:16 PM, private musings escribió:
> - Commons currently hosts many pictures, taken in a public place, without
> the apparent permission of the subject, of various folk in various states of
> undress (think topless women at the beach as the best example) - I think
> this is inappropriate and disrespectful, though undoubtedly legal.
> - Commons hosts pictures (such as the one linked to upthread) which seem
> highly unlikely to me to be genuinely released under a free licence, with
> the much more likely explanation that a n'eer do well has cheekily stolen a
> pic from some website - I believe good faith is often exploited in this
> regard.

These are unrelated issues -- questionable sources and lack of subject
consent apply just as much to non-nude and non-sexual images, and should
be pursued regardless of any possible change to how we treat sexual images.

-- brion

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

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> El 5/14/09 3:16 PM, private musings escribió:
>>     - Commons currently hosts many pictures, taken in a public place, without
>>     the apparent permission of the subject...
<
>>     highly unlikely to me to be genuinely released under a free licence [...]
>> I believe good faith is often exploited in this regard.
<
> These are unrelated issues -- questionable sources and lack of subject consent...
<
> -- brion

Exactly.

I would just add that many people are more concerned about the
dissemination of candid images of themselves when they are lounging,
looking silly, or having a bad hair day. Such images should
correspondingly be monitored even more closely than images of people
preening for the camera (again, regardless of what clothing is being
worn). I'm getting tired of pictures of casual nosepickers with no
model release being used to illustrate articles about nosepicking.
Use a real finger model, for goodness's sake'!

SJ

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