commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

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

Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

David Goodman
This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
any drawing could be.


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



On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:03 AM, private musings
<[hidden email]> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by private musings
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>




--
André Engels, [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
|

Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by David Goodman
> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> any drawing could be.
>
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
of knowledge to the world.

I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
(sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.

I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra.

Fred Bauder


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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

oscar-45
in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
very best,
oscar

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> > sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> > any drawing could be.
> >
> >
> > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
*edito ergo sum*

******************
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
******************
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred Bauder-2
> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> very best,
> oscar

Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
right thing.

Fred


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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Oldak
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:

>> This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
>> sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
>> any drawing could be.
>>
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder

Why shouldn't it be? Most humans engage in sexual practices of some
kind or another, so I would think our content on sexual practices
would be relevant to many of our readers. You suggest we should treat
content on sexual practices differently to how we treat content on
sporting practices because some of our readers may be minors. I am not
going to dispute the cultural relativity of what is suitable for
minors at the moment, but if we were to make the assumption that some
content is not suitable for minors (or, more to the point, that
because some content is considered unsuitable for minotrs, Wikipedia
is being discouraged at school), isn't there a better solution than
deleting content? For example, couldn't articles be tagged with a
"this article details sexual practices which some readers may feel is
not suitable for minors"? Articles with such a tag could be blocked in
user preferences, or for school IP ranges at the request of the
school. We could explain the tag at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia for
schools]] and explain how it is used.

I, personally, contend the premise that some content is inherently
unsuitable for minors. It really comes down to what some sections of
society consider unsuitable. For example, a Mormon parent's idea of
what is unsuitable, may differ to a Protestant parent's idea of what
is unsuitable - leaving alone the many possible non-Christian
variations. The point is that "suitability" is culturally relative.
Some parents may think it unsuitable at all to describe genital organs
or reproduction, many would think it entirely suitable. If we are to
honour removal/selective blocking of content on the grounds that it is
sexual, should we also honour a Mormon's parent's requests to block
the [[Joseph Smith]] article, which may give details that are
unpalatable to Mormons? Should we selectively block articles relating
to non-belief to honour parent's concerns as to what their children
are exposed to? It is a very slippery slope.

I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
that basis.

--
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: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
>> very best,
>> oscar
>>    
>
> Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> right thing.
>  

 From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
you seem to appreciate.

The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
"rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
conditions for which there is no proven link.

Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
consequences, and just do what is right.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>

> Fred Bauder wrote:
> >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> >> very best,
> >> oscar
> >>
> >
> > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> > right thing.
> >
>
>  From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> you seem to appreciate.
>
> The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> conditions for which there is no proven link.
>
> Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> consequences, and just do what is right.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

The Cunctator
I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough
to know that censorship is a dead issue.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hoi,
> As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
> It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
> other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> 2009/5/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>
>
> > Fred Bauder wrote:
> > >> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
> > >> very best,
> > >> oscar
> > >>
> > >
> > > Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
> > > right thing.
> > >
> >
> >  From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> > around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> > you seem to appreciate.
> >
> > The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> > "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> > view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> > conditions for which there is no proven link.
> >
> > Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> > be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> > right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> > this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> > consequences, and just do what is right.
> >
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> As there are people who care about this, would you please tone down a bit?
> It does not matter what you believe or do not believe, you should respect
> other people. Going on a tangent like this is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>  


Your thanks may be misplaced.

It is abundantly clear that your statement that there are
people who care about this is quite overstated.

So just get off your high horse yourself, or be taken down.

Please have a civil tongue.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.



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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs:  KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
>>> very best,
>>> oscar
>>>
>>
>> Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
>> right thing.
>>
>
>  From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
> around like there is no tomorrow is way more complex than
> you seem to appreciate.
>
> The problem with "karma" and I hate the term, just as
> "rewards in the next life" which is even more odious in my
> view; is that they talk about effecting a change in future
> conditions for which there is no proven link.
>
> Surely the real reason for doing the right thing cannot
> be that it pleases whoever, but just because it is the
> right thing. I forget which of Plato's dialogues explored
> this theme, but really, just fuck the gods, fuck the
> consequences, and just do what is right.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Without being superstitious, Wikipedia's karms is simply the consequences
of what we do, in this case, loss of both the usefulness of the
encyclopedia by part of broad spectrum of potential users and possible
loss of public support. Fucking the gods might be fun, but fucking the
consequences is not wise.

Fred



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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.

What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.

The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.

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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long
> enough
> to know that censorship is a dead issue.

It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. I might find gifting
someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike
comprehensive information about sexuality, it doesn't belong in a general
purpose encyclopedia intended and promoted for the use of a young world
wide audience.

As to censorship, we censor and delete dictionary definitions and recipes
for God's sake; that is how Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not works.

Fred Bauder


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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>> a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>

I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
spend hours looking for it.

I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

Fred Bauder



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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:
>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>> Karma Sutra.
>
> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>
> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.

Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
remove that content.

I'd especially like to be able to offer schools a feed that filters
out the adult content.  Obviously any system that depends on editors
to maintain the flags would be imperfect and subject to various
issues, but I do think making a good faith effort to provide
culturally sensitive variants of Wikipedia would be very useful from a
public relations standpoint and allow Wikipedia to reach audiences
that might otherwise be excluded.

-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: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Thomas Dalton
2009/5/14 Robert Rohde <[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:
>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>> Karma Sutra.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>
> Though technically challenging, I've long believed that the best
> answer is to develop some system similar to Categories that could be
> used to flag content that is potentially objectionable on various
> grounds and then provide the tools to create filtered streams that
> remove that content.

That would good. We can't choose what should and should not be seen by
our readers without violating neutrality but there is nothing stopping
them choosing for themselves.

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

Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:

>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:
>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>>> a
>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>> Karma Sutra.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>>
>
> I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
> spend hours looking for it.

There is no name for it because it is not false.

> I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
> does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

When I appear in public I wear clothing in keeping with the local
cultural norms. That is not neutral. I am not neutral. I have never
claimed to be and never will (except in very specific contexts). I,
however, am not Wikipedia.

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

Re: [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

David Moran-3
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

David Moran-3
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
*An article such as Pearl necklace
(sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
*
I assume her family cautioned her against using the internet entirely, then?

FMF





On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
> > sexual activity.  A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
> > any drawing could be.
> >
> >
> > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
1234