Sexual images of questionable provenance

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sexual images of questionable provenance

Nathan Awrich
There have been a number of discussion on the English Wikipedia lately
(sparked, of course, by the Virgin Killer image controversy) on the
propriety of various images and the need for retaining them on Wikipedia.
This is a problem that has a long history on Wikipedia, and a number of
controls are in place - limited ability to post explicit images on new
articles, some filtering of newly uploaded images to delete those that are
obviously duplicative, exhibitionist, etc. Many comments we've had in the
last few days concerned the legality of various images, particularly where
consent is not demonstrated or verifiable. I've commented [1] that the
legality issue shouldn't be a major concern for English Wikipedia editors,
because the Foundation itself ought to have limited liability and the
individual uploaders have primary culpability for any illegal images.

But I still think that there is a community issue here, and I wonder if
someone can fill in the details on how we currently deal with it. How well
is the Commons guideline COM:PEOPLE enforced with respect to sexual images?
Do the many projects with separate image databases generally have similar
guidelines? Does anyone know how well they are enforced? In a discussion
this past weekend someone else and I were discussing examples of problem
images, where the person in an explicit photograph is of questionable age.

I realized after a quick survey on Commons of image origins that many of the
explicit images are sourced to a single Flickr account. The license of the
images was verified closer to the time of upload, but since then the Flickr
account has been deactivated. We have no knowledge of the consent of the
photographed models, nor any mechanism for verifying their age, and many if
not most of the images are unused on Wikipedia projects (which is true, I
suspect, for many sexually explicit photographs in general). The whole
category of images [3] was previously put up for deletion [2] but the
discussion was closed in favor of individual image reviews, which I
understand mostly closed as keep.

I don't think the Foundation itself can or should do anything about this
issue in most cases, but I think the topic deserves some wider discussion
and reconsideration - not necessarily as a response to the IWF debacle, but
taking that as an opportunity to get a wider audience.

Of note is Jimmy's recommendation to the en.wp community (I assume, since it
was posted there) for this sort of reconsideration. [4]

Nathan


[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=256870274&oldid=256869214
[2]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Peter_Klashorst_Photos
[3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Peter_Klashorst
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=256862858&oldid=256836841



--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Ting Chen-2
Hello Nathan,

also I don't consider myself as an active member of the commons
community, but surely as a heavy user of it :-), I agree with you that
we should reestimate these images.

As for other wikipedia language versions. As far as I know on my
home-version, the zh-wp there are no such images. By the fair-use-images
there we handle it far more restrictive and many people are watching on
it. We also very fast delete non-free-images there that are not or no
more in use. So I think this problem is smaller. But we also have free
images there that are not in use, that may be uploaded years ago and no
one know them any more. So I would animate the administrators there to
reexam all images that are classified as free images.

Ting

Nathan wrote:

> There have been a number of discussion on the English Wikipedia lately
> (sparked, of course, by the Virgin Killer image controversy) on the
> propriety of various images and the need for retaining them on Wikipedia.
> This is a problem that has a long history on Wikipedia, and a number of
> controls are in place - limited ability to post explicit images on new
> articles, some filtering of newly uploaded images to delete those that are
> obviously duplicative, exhibitionist, etc. Many comments we've had in the
> last few days concerned the legality of various images, particularly where
> consent is not demonstrated or verifiable. I've commented [1] that the
> legality issue shouldn't be a major concern for English Wikipedia editors,
> because the Foundation itself ought to have limited liability and the
> individual uploaders have primary culpability for any illegal images.
>
> But I still think that there is a community issue here, and I wonder if
> someone can fill in the details on how we currently deal with it. How well
> is the Commons guideline COM:PEOPLE enforced with respect to sexual images?
> Do the many projects with separate image databases generally have similar
> guidelines? Does anyone know how well they are enforced? In a discussion
> this past weekend someone else and I were discussing examples of problem
> images, where the person in an explicit photograph is of questionable age.
>
> I realized after a quick survey on Commons of image origins that many of the
> explicit images are sourced to a single Flickr account. The license of the
> images was verified closer to the time of upload, but since then the Flickr
> account has been deactivated. We have no knowledge of the consent of the
> photographed models, nor any mechanism for verifying their age, and many if
> not most of the images are unused on Wikipedia projects (which is true, I
> suspect, for many sexually explicit photographs in general). The whole
> category of images [3] was previously put up for deletion [2] but the
> discussion was closed in favor of individual image reviews, which I
> understand mostly closed as keep.
>
> I don't think the Foundation itself can or should do anything about this
> issue in most cases, but I think the topic deserves some wider discussion
> and reconsideration - not necessarily as a response to the IWF debacle, but
> taking that as an opportunity to get a wider audience.
>
> Of note is Jimmy's recommendation to the en.wp community (I assume, since it
> was posted there) for this sort of reconsideration. [4]
>
> Nathan
>
>
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=256870274&oldid=256869214
> [2]
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Peter_Klashorst_Photos
> [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Peter_Klashorst
> [4]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=256862858&oldid=256836841
>
>
>
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Huib Laurens
Hi,

I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.

I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
it.

I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
image.

We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
images with very young people on it.

Huib

--
Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Waerth
Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade .....


> Hi,
>
> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>
> I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
> it.
>
> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
> image.
>
> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
> images with very young people on it.
>
> Huib
>
>  



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Huib Laurens
I wouldn't mind a standard that said that identifiable, contemporary
nudes (i.e. images with faces showing which aren't decades old) would
be deleted if there aren't being used on any Wikimedia project.  There
is a non-trivial risk of harm if we simply allow unlimited inclusion
of photos that under normal circumstance would usually be considered
private, and when the photos aren't in actual use I think respect for
that risk should usually outweigh the consideration that they might
possibly be useful some day.

-Robert Rohde


On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Huib Laurens <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>
> I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
> it.
>
> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
> image.
>
> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
> images with very young people on it.
>
> Huib
>
> --
> Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by Waerth
Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
some points we should consider:

At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal issues.

Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other
measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be
done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images.

Ting

Waerth wrote:

> Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade .....
>
>
>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
>> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
>> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>>
>> I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
>> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
>> it.
>>
>> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
>> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
>> image.
>>
>> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
>> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
>> images with very young people on it.
>>
>> Huib
>>
>>  
>>    
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

David Moran-3
I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes far
in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point of
commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can
only be beneficial.

If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and
delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based
on an image's use.

FMF


On 12/10/08, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
> some points we should consider:
>
> At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
> Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal issues.
>
> Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other
> measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be
> done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images.
>
> Ting
>
> Waerth wrote:
> > Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade .....
> >
> >
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> >> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> >> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
> >>
> >> I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
> >> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
> >> it.
> >>
> >> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
> >> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
> >> image.
> >>
> >> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
> >> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
> >> images with very young people on it.
> >>
> >> Huib
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

David Moran-3
Also, it's probably worth pointing out that most of the people here
ultimately seem to be urging a re-examination of Flickr-licensed images in
general, not so much specifically sexual ones.

FMF




On 12/10/08, David Moran <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes far
> in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point of
> commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
> repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
> image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can
> only be beneficial.
>
> If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and
> delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based
> on an image's use.
>
> FMF
>
>
> On 12/10/08, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
>> some points we should consider:
>>
>> At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
>> Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal
>> issues.
>>
>> Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other
>> measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be
>> done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>> Waerth wrote:
>> > Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade .....
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
>> >> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
>> >> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>> >>
>> >> I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
>> >> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
>> >> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
>> >> image.
>> >>
>> >> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
>> >> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
>> >> images with very young people on it.
>> >>
>> >> Huib
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Andrew Whitworth-2
In reply to this post by David Moran-3
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes far
> in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point of
> commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
> repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
> image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can
> only be beneficial.
>
> If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and
> delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based
> on an image's use.

It's also worth considering hypothetical books at Wikibooks or courses
at Wikversity that teach the art of nude portraits, for which a large
wealth of such images would be needed as examples. A simple search on
Amazon for "nude photography" returns many such books [1]. Just
because the nudity-related articles on Wikipedia can't use all of
these types of images doesn't mean that they are useless to our
projects.

Obviously non-free images are a different topic entirely, and if these
images are unacceptable for other reasons then they should be handled
accordingly. However, deleting an image just because it is not
currently used at Wikipedia is awfully short-sighted.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nude+photography&x=0&y=0

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Ting Chen-2
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
> some points we should consider:
>
> At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
> Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal issues.
>
> Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other
> measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be
> done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images.

In the last year or so Commons got at least two verifiable sources of
photos of nudity via Flickr. One is by a known author, other is by
some group which gave permissions to OTRS. If I remember well, those
two sets make the most (or, at least, a relative majority) of
categorized nudity images on Commons.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Whitworth-2
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Whitworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
>> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
>> readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
>> Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes far
>> in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point of
>> commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
>> repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
>> image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can
>> only be beneficial.
>>
>> If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and
>> delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based
>> on an image's use.
>
> It's also worth considering hypothetical books at Wikibooks or courses
> at Wikversity that teach the art of nude portraits, for which a large
> wealth of such images would be needed as examples. A simple search on
> Amazon for "nude photography" returns many such books [1]. Just
> because the nudity-related articles on Wikipedia can't use all of
> these types of images doesn't mean that they are useless to our
> projects.
>
> Obviously non-free images are a different topic entirely, and if these
> images are unacceptable for other reasons then they should be handled
> accordingly. However, deleting an image just because it is not
> currently used at Wikipedia is awfully short-sighted.

I may imagine free books and manuals about sex, too. Sexual education
is a part of modern education, as well as it is very important issue
in development of personality; actually, much more important than
quantum mechanics.

Besides the illustration of sexual positions, such books should
include illustrations of pornography, too, because this is the
important part of contemporary sexuality.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by David Moran-3
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:22 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes far
> in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point of
> commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
> repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
> image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can
> only be beneficial.
>
> If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and
> delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based
> on an image's use.

Considerations of personal privacy don't apply to pictures of fruit or
airplanes.  Images of identifiable people posing are intrinsically
different and deserve to be treated with greater sceptism.

If you don't like a use standard, I'd be happy to accept an OTRS
standard for identifiable nudes, but I do think we need to recognize
that not all images have equal impact.  Is it useful to have 500
poorly documented pictures of naked women, maybe.  Is it harmful to
have 1 image inappropriately uploaded by an angry ex-boyfriend,
absolutely.  If we can help prevent the latter circumstance by
reducing the number of poorly documented (and often unused) nude
photos on Commons, then I am all for it, regardless of how you want to
approach it.

Perhaps because I suggested "use" as a limitation, you misunderstood
my goal.  My intent is to prevent the misuse of Commons to store and
distribute images inappropriately, by which I mean images not
authorized for distribution by all the parties involved.  This is an
area where I think we would lose little if we removed images we aren't
using (speculations about sex manuals notwithstanding), but if you
want to take different steps to minimize inappropriate use then by all
means suggest what they should be.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

David Moran-3
I think first what would be required was that it be convincingly
demonstrated that "inappropriate use" of sexual imagery on Commons was in
fact a problem before we start crafting deletion policies to deal with it.

FMF




On 12/10/08, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:22 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> > currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> > readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> > Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes
> far
> > in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point
> of
> > commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
> > repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
> > image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose
> can
> > only be beneficial.
> >
> > If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead
> and
> > delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion
> based
> > on an image's use.
>
> Considerations of personal privacy don't apply to pictures of fruit or
> airplanes.  Images of identifiable people posing are intrinsically
> different and deserve to be treated with greater sceptism.
>
> If you don't like a use standard, I'd be happy to accept an OTRS
> standard for identifiable nudes, but I do think we need to recognize
> that not all images have equal impact.  Is it useful to have 500
> poorly documented pictures of naked women, maybe.  Is it harmful to
> have 1 image inappropriately uploaded by an angry ex-boyfriend,
> absolutely.  If we can help prevent the latter circumstance by
> reducing the number of poorly documented (and often unused) nude
> photos on Commons, then I am all for it, regardless of how you want to
> approach it.
>
> Perhaps because I suggested "use" as a limitation, you misunderstood
> my goal.  My intent is to prevent the misuse of Commons to store and
> distribute images inappropriately, by which I mean images not
> authorized for distribution by all the parties involved.  This is an
> area where I think we would lose little if we removed images we aren't
> using (speculations about sex manuals notwithstanding), but if you
> want to take different steps to minimize inappropriate use then by all
> means suggest what they should be.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> Considerations of personal privacy don't apply to pictures of fruit or
> airplanes.  Images of identifiable people posing are intrinsically
> different and deserve to be treated with greater sceptism.
>
> If you don't like a use standard, I'd be happy to accept an OTRS
> standard for identifiable nudes, but I do think we need to recognize
> that not all images have equal impact.

We do: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

Though I'd generally support a strengthening of those terms wrt nudity
or sexual situations... we already do, though it's not so clearly
expressed there.

> Is it useful to have 500
> poorly documented pictures of naked women, maybe.  Is it harmful to
> have 1 image inappropriately uploaded by an angry ex-boyfriend,
> absolutely.

LonelygirlUk.
"Oh yes, Thats me— I consent to being naked on the internet"

We're kind screwed with respect to your hypothetical, but we should
still do due diligence.

[snip]
> Perhaps because I suggested "use" as a limitation, you misunderstood
> my goal.  My intent is to prevent the misuse of Commons to store and
> distribute images inappropriately, by which I mean images not
> authorized for distribution by all the parties involved.

This case is particularly relevant because many other "upload whatever
you want" sites won't accept the nudity, hide it behind account
registration. The only site coming to mind that will is eroshare, but
your revenge image surrounded by hardcore porn may not be the effect
you were trying to achieve.

[snip]
> This is an
> area where I think we would lose little if we removed images we aren't
> using (speculations about sex manuals notwithstanding), but if you
> want to take different steps to minimize inappropriate use then by all
> means suggest what they should be.

The usefulness of most of our human sexuality images for such purposes
is far from indisputable.  A good sex manual would seek to maximize
its educational value by minimizing the unnecessary shock and
perception of prurience of their images.  This is a major factor in
why EnWP has historically used drawings for most sex position
articles.

I'm all for aggressively defending material which serves an
educational purpose.  But commons is not a porno gallery.
Commons:Scope is quite clear on our mission. We may include sexually
related imagery but only in an effort to fulfill our mission.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, David Moran <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think first what would be required was that it be convincingly
> demonstrated that "inappropriate use" of sexual imagery on Commons was in
> fact a problem before we start crafting deletion policies to deal with it.

Proof made harder by the fact that we're already fairly aggressive in
deleting the most inappropriate activity. :)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Oldak
In reply to this post by Huib Laurens
2008/12/10 Huib Laurens <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>
> I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
> it.
>
> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
> image.
>
> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
> images with very young people on it.
>
> Huib

I disagree that we should have different standards for media
containing nudity and sexuality. Sexuality is an important educational
subject. One of the most important, as another poster pointed out. On
Wikipedia alone, one would expect a range of articles on different
issues relating to sexuality and nudity which would be illustrated
where possible. Commons isn't simply a dumping ground for Wikipedia
articles though, and also functions as a free media repository.

To treat media differently because it contains nudity or sexuality is
to allow our own biases and tastes to influence content. To exclude
such media because it offends our tastes is not neutral or unbiased.
These are legitimate topics that need to be illustrated and
demonstrated as much as any other topic.

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip>

> LonelygirlUk.
> "Oh yes, Thats me— I consent to being naked on the internet"
>
> We're kind screwed with respect to your hypothetical, but we should
> still do due diligence.
>
<snip>

Of course, the LonelygirlUK images were eventually (significantly
after the fact) identified as belonging to a particular pornstar.  So
while they were copyvios (unless the pornstar was actually the
uploader?!) they probably can't be said to have caused any harm to
woman in question.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Oldak
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I disagree that we should have different standards for media
> containing nudity and sexuality. Sexuality is an important educational
> subject. One of the most important, as another poster pointed out. On
> Wikipedia alone, one would expect a range of articles on different
> issues relating to sexuality and nudity which would be illustrated
> where possible. Commons isn't simply a dumping ground for Wikipedia
> articles though, and also functions as a free media repository.
>
> To treat media differently because it contains nudity or sexuality is
> to allow our own biases and tastes to influence content. To exclude
> such media because it offends our tastes is not neutral or unbiased.
> These are legitimate topics that need to be illustrated and
> demonstrated as much as any other topic.
>

I don't think what we're discussing is taste. Quite apart from the issue of
taste and values is the issue of doing harm to the subject of our content.
The potential for harm in a sexually explicit photograph is much higher than
that for most any other class of content that comes to mind. With these
images the notions of consent and age become very important, and while the
COM:PEOPLE guideline on Commons addresses this in very broad way there seems
to be room for improvement and tightening in the control of this sort of
content across Wikimedia projects.

Educational use is certainly to be allowed and encouraged - sexual manuals,
artistic manuals, etc. are valid uses of Wikimedia projects and the
accompanying images have their place on Commons. But there is no need to
have unlimited images of the sort that theoretically could be attached to
these projects, when these images present their subjects and our community
with an array of problems.

In an ideal world, all nude images on Commons would require that the age and
consent to publish of the model be verifiable. This would not be the same as
barring nude images - indeed, it would explicitly permit the upload of these
images to Commons while ensuring that we meet our responsibility to limit
the potential for harm to living people.

David Moran mentions that we should be sure there is a current problem
before working on a solution. This is a valid position, but there are
problems with that approach. The Commons project is quite obscure to the
wider world, so we simply can't rely on those who can potentially be
offended by images of themselves to contact Commons or OTRS. Commons, and
the other projects, don't appear to have systematic procedures for requiring
that consent and age of models be verifiable. The lack of these procedures
means that the extent of any current problem is unknown - we may have
explicit images now that were published without the consent of the subject
(I suspect its quite likely that we do), or with a subject beneath the age
of consent. But because we don't check, and we don't require uploaders to
provide such information, we don't know.

Nathan




Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sexual images of questionable provenance

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Sorry I wrote my last mail in haste and I didn't explained it very good.

At first I am not very worried about images on commons, I believe there
are already some reexaminations done. I am more worried about images
that are in the local projects. Take the example of my home-project
zh-wp. We have images that are uploaded in 2003. At that time no one
really cared about them. Later User:Shizhao mostly did the examination
alone for quite long time. We had really began to notice the image
upload and examine every uploaded image since one or two years. If
someone labeled the image he uploaded as GFDL before this time, we
normally didn't cared about it anymore. When I say reexamine I mean
these images. I don't know how about the other projects. But I can
imagine that at least in some projects we would have similar situation.

I mentioned not-used images not to discriminate these images. But these
images are not seen since they are uploaded and as thus are less
reexamined since then. Only under this aspect did I mention the not-used
images.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l