Commons talk:Sexual content/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

April 2010 Proposal

work recommencing :-)

Just a small note here to offer strong support for the work which is recommencing here in regard to clarifying and possibly tightening up practices on commons - it seems like a good direction to me :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

removal of 'proposal 1'

When I originally wrote these proposals, I felt that a small sensible step would be to encourage people not to create galleries of naughty pics, and in fact to prohibit sexual content from userspace here - there was a related proposal to limit sexual content to article space over on en. Whilst I would still support such a measure, I don't think it's as central or important as the other 2 proposals, so I've trimmed it from this page for now in order to try and get a wider consensus of support for these necessary steps. Privatemusings (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

older than a year

I'm minded to move comments older than 1 year on this page to an archive - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that all content resulting from the Dec 2008 proposal should be archived. It's important to keep, but directly relevant to the new guideline. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerns from User:Thryduulf

Proposal 1

Per the discussions elsewhere of late, I completely oppose any system that wants to categorise/tag/identify/etc images based on such descriptions as "not safe for work", "sexual content", "sexually explicit", "partial nudity", etc, that are not only undefined but also completely undefinable in any way that is culturally neutral, consistent, and objective.

While I don't object to objective, specific tags like "posed photographs of human females with uncovered fully-developed breasts", "unlabelled anatomically correctly line drawings of sexual intercourse between human males and human females showing full figures", and "photographs of groups of adolescent human males with uncovered torsos", anything less detailed can only be subjective. Such subjective tags will lead only to either massive numbers of false positives or massive numbers of false negatives. Both cases would also lead to huge amounts of discussion, debate and argument about whether a specific image fits whichever generic label (e.g is a painting of a naked man and a naked woman kissing each other "sexually explicit" - some cultures say yes, others say no, but which is correct? Does a photograph of a shirtless man depict "partial nudity"? Is a photograph of a teenage mother breastfeeding "explicit"?).

Large numbers of false positives make the system useless by denying access to images that people want to be able to see, thus the system is not used and can see the images that they do not want to as well.

Large numbers of false negatives make the system useless by still showing the images that people do not want to see to them. If the system uses a non-trivial amount of resources then it will get turned off as there is no benefit in using it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that I didn't write this section so I don't know what the intent of the author was. I propose that it be changed to work better with the proposals in the below section. I propose the categories along the guidelines of the w:Internet Content Rating Association.
This information can be added to the page in through modification of the wiki source code using standard w:Resource Description Framework format. Standard categories are Nudity, Sexual Content, Violence, Offensive Language (in description or image), Potentially harmful activities. There's also a Context descriptor called "This material appears in a context intended to be artistic, medical or educational" that could automatically be added.
Most adults don't use Content Control so the issue of false positives or false negatives aren't relevant. Rating is not very hard to do and there should be a review process for disputes. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Most adults don't use Content Control - indeed. They use their brains. So let them. Oh, right, kids... whose parents should be monitoring their internet/world usage in light of what they (parents) wish them (kids) to learn. Our responsibility is to provide encyclopedic content, not to police what some people in the USA might be offended by due to their puritanical mores. This proposal specifically has been rejected, the concept has been rejected on commons time and time again, you are arguing that gee whillakers, the stegosaurus should be given a nice grazing pasture. It is dead, dead, dead, and all your editwarring and muckraking isn't going to change that. good effort though, ten out of ten for trying. Roux (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 Comment User:Roux has been blocked from his home project, English Wikipedia, indefinately. Block log is here. I have reported this user to the Administrator's Noticeboard for disruptive behavior and threatening myself and User:Privatemusings. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It is generally considered wise to allow knowledge to precede opinions, Stillwaterising. You know nothing of the circumstances of that block, nor does it have any bearing here whatsoever. Nice try though; can't actually refute what I say so you attack me instead. How's that leg you don't have to stand on? Roux (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Please define "Nudity", "Sexual Content", "Violence", "Offensive Language" (in description or image), and "Potentially harmful activities". Please do so in a way that is NPOV, objective and culturally neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
These terms are defined at the link here. NPOV? Why, and according to whom? Culturally neutral, not applicable. This isn't Wikipedia and this isn't an article on the topic. The purpose of these rankings is to allow RDF metatags to be picked up and used by Content Control software. Use of this software is voluntary and will not affect anybody who does not care to use it. The purpose is to make Commons safe for educational use for minors. In other words, safe for children. There's been a lot of critisism of Wikimedia Commons for allowing images to be displayed without warning, and it's impossible for any content control software administrators to effectively classify almost 6.5 million images or keep up with hundreds submitted every day. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point that Commons is an international project and so any way that we define images or their content must be culturally neutral to be of any use to anybody. You also seem to miss the point that what one culture/person considers "safe for minors" can be very different to what someone else considers to be so. There are also a million different definitions of "Children", "minors" and "educational use" - for example "educational use" in secular high-school sex education classes in Denmark is very different to, but equally educational, as what is likely to be useful in a Roman Catholic primary school in Singapore. Also, we make no claim that the images we host are acceptable to everyone - indeed at several places we explicitly say that we host material that some people will find objectionable. When you say that it is impossible to classify all the images, then that should give you some indication that you should not try to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I have to oppose this proposal also - no evidence has been presented that the current system doesn't work, and as set out below the proposal will not achieve what it sets out to do.

  • The proposal is highly US-specific - it is based almost entirely around "18 U.S.C. § 2251", which applies only to certain organisations (it does not apply to Wikimedia Commons) within one country (the United States of America) and as such it's requirements are irrelevant to the rest of the world. "Professional 18 U.S.C. § 2251 services" will not necessarily be available outside the USA. Requiring the keeping in perpetuity in such circumstances would prohibit the upload of any photos not from the United States.
  • It does not define "Sexual content". Assuming the definition used in the US Act is intended, then this represents a single interpretation of the term for a single country, rather than the infinite variety of definitions from all the world's other cultures.
  • It does not explain how "sexual content tagged with the 'personality rights' template" is harmful, particularly when the definition of "sexual content" (if any) is not necessarily relevant to the culture of the person in the photograph (for example they may not regard the situation as being sexual).
  • The suggestion to "Clarify existing practice in terms of explicit imagery" gives no indication what is meant by "explicit imagery". All the consensus I've seen regarding imagery that may be regarded as explicit are the same as that for any other type of imagery - if it is in scope and not redundant to similar images of higher quality then it is desirable. If an image is redundant to similar images, particularly if it is of lower quality, then it is less desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, this proposal is US-specific because Wikimedia is a US non-profit corporation and must comply with local, state, and federal laws. 18 U.S.C. § 2251 has been assumed to not apply to websites that do not sell their services, however I propose that we voluntarily comply with this law because it is our stated goal that images should be able to be used commericially, and as things stand our images with sexual content can not be used commercially without 18 U.S.C. § 2251 information included.
    • Wikimedia does comply with all local, state and federal laws that apply to it, this does not include 18 U.S.C. § 2251. There is no consensus from the users or the legal team that there is a need for us to voluntarily comply with it, or that there would be a benefit in us doing so. Our images with sexual content can be used commercially in every country that is not subject the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, which is every country in the world with the exception of the United States. It is not clear that all commercial use of "sexual content" (whatever that means) in the United States would be prohibited either, AIUI several provisions of the law have been decreed to violate first amendment rights and as such are (presently?) unenforceable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not think this will prohibit the uploading of photos from international users, however all users must submit their records to 18 U.S.C. § 2251 record holders within the United States. If there is some other way to comply with the law I'm open to suggestions.
  • What images do, or do not, require 18 U.S.C. § 2251 information should be determined by US law and existing US court precedents. Final decision on this matter should rest with Wikimedia's legal team. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 18 U.S.C. § 2251 applies to producers of sexual content for commercial use. Commons is not a producer (primary or secondary) and also is not a commercial venture whose purpose is to sell sexual content. The vast array of images on commons included many images and the ones that could be described by some as "sexual content" are small in proportion. Clearly we all have an interest in prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children. No one is willing to throw out or censor all prospective sexual content in the process though. As far as I know there is no problem to solve here. Are there any known issues with sexual content that include children within commons? (Let me be clear that this is my opinion, and I am not a lawyer and not representing anyone else's viewpoint.) Atomaton (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course it is commercial, all internet is commercial, always and everywhere. It does not take a 'sale' of explicit sexual material, a sole exchange or possible exchange is sufficient to judge this as being commercial. Some file names alone ("doggy", "creampie") also indicate a provenience from commercial sites. --UAltmann (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That is simply not the case. WMF derives no financial gain from hosting images. That is the definition of commercial. And filenames are descriptive--of doggystyle sex, of creampies--and have nothing to do with commercial sites. Roux (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what your definition of commercial is. What is important in this context though is that if the proposed policy is based on 18 USC 2251, as it is, that the policy fails because none of the content on Commons fits into that law. The law applies to what the U.S. federal law considers to be commercial production of sexual content for sale. Whatever your definition is, WMF content does *not* fit that definition. Proceed if you wish on trying to classify objectionable content, but trying to use 18 USC 2251 or other (now unconstitutional) US laws instantly makes that attempt invalid. It will need to be based on consensus, and not scare tactics. The implication that WMF may be investigated by the FBI, for instance, would be a very good thing. That would establish clarity and possibly legal precedent that content that is explicit or objectionable for some people is legally acceptable for WMF. By US law it is not obscene, and meets our community standards. (even if some few disagree) Atomaton (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Further proposals

The proposals section is equally poorly though out.

  • "Require age verification of fully or partially clothed models in sexually suggestive poses" does not indicate what "sexually suggestive poses" might be, excludes historical images where such verification is impossible, and ignores the fact that not every country uses a cut-off at age 18 to determine what is and isn't a photograph of a child.
  • "Implement the COPINE Scale as a way to help identify what images may, or may not be acceptable (with rankings of 4 or higher being unacceptable)." is equally culturally biased, but this time towards a scale developed by an unelected body in the United Kingdom, and links to the outdated version of the scale (10 levels) rather than the most recent 5-level scale. It is also worth noting that phrases in the scale, such as "sexualised or provocative poses" are not defined.
  • "Work with content-control software software developers in order to provide accurate content ratings of sexually explicit, violent, or disturbing images." does not define what "explicit", "violent" or "disturbing" mean, or how such ratings would be defined and/or implemented, nor whether one or more ratings would be developed to take account of different cultures defining the terms differently (e.g. images of beaches in which some females are topless are generally not considered "explicit" in France but are by some in the USA). Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The COPINE scale is a tool that can be used as rank acceptable or unacceptable images. I prefer the use of the original 10 point scale over the newer 5 point scale.
  • The Child Sex Abuse and Porn Act was inacted in 1977 and I believe that images made before November 1, 1990 are exempt. There's also the clause, §1466A(2)(B) stating, in the instance of child pornography lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
From TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256: “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
  • The definition of "lascivious" from dictionary.com:
las·civ·i·ous   [luh-siv-ee-uhs]
–adjective
  1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
  2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
  3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.

There is probably a legal definition of lascivious as well and I will post it if I find one. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  •  Comment I think everyone agrees that we should not host child pornography. But when is it pornography? If an image of a nude child on a beach is pornography then the parents that lets their kids run around nude be put in jail for the creation of child pornography. Does that happen? No. Therefore I do not think it is porn every time someone is (partial) nude. Therefore age verification is only needed if there is some sexual act going on (intercourse and masturbation etc.).
What we could have is some sort of "permission" from the person (old or young) on the photo if the person can be identified. That way we could avoid that someone uploads images of their ex girl-/boyfriend as a revenge. --MGA73 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Which is the most obvious problem with these uploads. DR's like Commons:Deletion requests/File:25 028-1.JPG should be closed as deleted immediately (but it has been open since April 11). Can be undeleted when permissions are confirmed (I do not know how though.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Using File:Boulogne 1989 mes petits.JPG as an example, naked children on beach would rank as a 2 (Nudist) on the original COPINE scale . This picture is already appropriately tagged and no further action is needed. As to what contitues sexual content requiring identifying information see above definition. As far as personality rights go, it's better to bring up the discussion there. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

wtf

Why the hell is this being discussed again? It was soundly thrashed last time. Privatemusings, get a clue: nobody wants this prudish nonsense. Roux (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rejected

It's been the best part of a week since I asked my questions and there appear to be no answers, nobody else has voiced any support for the proposal. One users' marking of the proposal as "rejected" was reverted by the proposer, which was itself reverted. To prevent an edit war, I feel I (and anyone else who cares) should explicitly endorse the rejection here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why Commons hosting couldn't be moved to Amsterdam, the other major colo hub for wmf projects. So that deals with your Amerocentric issues. Roux (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I think starting a new Commons-like project in a different country (like the Netherlands) is a great idea. I DO NOT want to have to push American values on users who are obviously not Americans, however Wikimedia Commons is an American based project and MUST comply with American laws. All images have CC license or better and can easily be moved to another site. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed we do have to comply with American laws, but every legal opinion that has been sought says that we are already doing exactly that, and nobody has ever (despite repeated requests) presented any evidence to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support. Let's get rid of this, once and for all. Kameraad Pjotr 07:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support the rejection categorically and unambiguously. This subject needs to die and the editor concerned really needs a shot across the bows over repeatedly restarting discussions on it. There is serious soapboxing going on here and attempts at censorship. I agree that a permanent topic ban is completely appropriate for the editor concerned. Timtrent (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support, though I wouldn't mind reopening the discussion if enough people want that. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Full support Although content stored on servers in U.S. must comply with U.S. laws, it is clear that the foundation of this policy is based on 18 U.S.C. § 2251, and that law applies to commercial producers of sexual content. It does not apply to Wikipedia or commons. The proposal is a roundabout way of trying to censor content -- which overwhelmingly has been rejected by most Wikipedia editors over and over and over. Also, it is a solution to a problem that does not seem to exist on commons. Atomaton (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment This voting is very wrong -- per all WM policies and traditions, any proposition is rejected unless there is a consensus (~75%) about it. Please do not vote here, this means nothing. Vote for or against each proposition, unless the proposition gains consensus, it is rejected. --5ko (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposition was rejected, by far more than 75%. Read the archive linked at the top of the page; it was made conveniently small by someone, but it's up there. Roux (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That proposal was written last year, this proposal has substantial changes and is still under development. I've had a very hard last two weeks in my personal life and nearly lost my housing. Just because I have not responded to a battery of questions in over a week does not mean this project is abandoned. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't care about your personal life, as it has absolutely zero bearing here, so bringing it up is worse than pointless. There are, in fact, no substantial changes here, just the same old prudish crud that was here before. This proposal has been rejected in completely unambiguous terms--go familiarise yourself with the archive. This is not going to happen, and consensus projectwide guarantees that. Sorry if that offends your personal prudery, but welcome to the wide world of the Internet, where GASP people think wider than OMG TEH CHILDRENZ. Roux (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
However there has equally been no support from anybody else that indicates that it is worth your (or anyone else's) time to continue developing the proposal. There is no evidence that it is needed, and there is evidently no desire for it either. It is not just the questions above, it is the questions at every other one of the myriad places it has been discussed over the past few years. Never has anyone managed to come up with any satisfactory answers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I know it was rejected (I also voted), it's a fact. There is no point to establish this fact with a vote. And that if this voting here doesn't get a consensus (75%+), this wouldn't mean that Commons:Sexual_content is not a rejected policy proposition. --5ko (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm very confused because this vote only asks for support on it's rejection, and does not invite any voting on approval. This proposal is not ready for approval and there has been no indication that it is. No invitation for has been made on Village Pump asking for approval vote. The phrase "this wouldn't mean that Commons:Sexual_content is not a rejected policy proposition" is a double negative. Again, this is not a finished proposal, voting is kill it before it is finished is actually censorship and against policy. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the double negative means exactly what it is intended: regardless of this vote, the proposed text is rejected, until a positive vote approves it (the text) with a rough consensus. I don't think the community is moving towards a consensus at this moment, and even if it were the case, the {{Rejected}} template should remain visible. --5ko (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If there have been substantial changes in either the proposal or the circumstances around it, and there are at least a few people who want to discuss the matter again, and there has been substantial time since the rejection, it is appropriate to move a proposal from rejected, back to proposed, and discuss it. I am seeing all of the above. There have been changes in the proposal to make it more compliant with our policies and practices. There have been significant new developments with the threat of FBI investigation. It has been a while since this was rejected. And there is a significant minority that wants it discussed again. Including me. Therefore, while the proposal WAS properly rejected in its prior form, it now should be allowed to be discussed again.

Further, characterizing people as "prudes", or referring to "Americocentric" issues, is exceedingly unhelpful, and should be discontinued forthwith. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Lar. I have added to the project header that this is a proposed policy in development. The previous version of the proposal (here) was marked as rejected by Lar on 11 December 2008 after a similar talk page straw poll to kill development. Times are indeed changing, as this proposal has too. The current proposal has a few similarities to the original and the finished proposal may have none at all. Regardless, this proposal is clearly marked as "in development" and anybody who wishes to help contructively contribute is welcome to do so. All other grumblings are best kept elsewhere. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It is impossible to polish a turd. All the changes have done is created a turd with a cherry on the top. It still stinks. Timtrent (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Stillwaterising reverted the comment above labelling it 'vandalism'. Checking the history of this page will show that this is a recurring issue with this user and this discussion page. Timtrent (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it was a particularly useful (or at least not particularly tactful) comment but it wasn't vandalism and shouldn't have been removed. Established users can express their opinions and should be able to do so without reversion. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I will accept 'not tactful', but it was also very much to the point. It says precisely what I view the article as and precisely how it has been improved. Timtrent (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, there aren't "at least a few people who want to discuss the matter again". one account wants to discuss it again, if you are another account which wants to discuss it again, please vote against the rejection. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What is "sexual content"?

Several questions in an effort to clarify this (because if it is going to be pursued, it must be clarified).

Which (if any) of the following would those who are proposing this consider "sexual content"? Feel free to refine with examples if it is a matter of "it depends".

  • A classical Greek urn portraying a sex act.
  • A classical Hindu statue portraying a sex act.
  • A Renaissance-era painting of the Rape of the Sabine Women.
  • A contemporary photograph of a naked person on a beach.
  • A contemporary photograph of a naked, body-painted person on a bicycle.
  • A contemporary photograph of a woman, bare-breasted but with electric tape over her nipples, in a Gay Pride parade.
  • A cutaway diagram of human genitalia.
  • A cutaway diagram of non-mammalian genitalia.
  • A contemporary photograph of a man and woman kissing.
  • A contemporary photograph of two men kissing.
  • A contemporary photograph of two women kissing.
  • A photograph of a vibrator or dildo (no human in photo).

I'm sure many other examples could be given, but so far from what is on the project page I can't tell whether any one of these would be included. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to engage in these sort of questions, Jmabel - although there's a lot of noise on this page at the mo. - in short, I think it's possible and desirable to get some accuracy in image categorisation and description - perhaps common ground might be that a photo of direct, explicit sexual activity (eg. a man ejaculating onto a woman's breasts) would indeed be sensibly classified as 'sexual content' - would you agree? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that such an image cannot intrinsically be for educational purposes and therefore must only be sexual? Roux (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
why do you feel they'd be exclusive? Privatemusings (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
And this, precisely, is the exact problem with this nonsense proposal. In conservative parts of the Muslim world, a woman's hands would be considered sexually inappropriate content. In the USA, a nipple is considered automatically sexual (cf Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction'). In large swathes of South America, bared breasts are the norm. At a nudist camp, no nudity is automatically sexual. In one (Polynesian? South American? I can't remember and will have to dig to find the cite) tribe, sexual play is considered completely normal for anyone of any age, and thus presumably no images would arouse (ahem) comment. In Canada, it is legal for women to walk around bare-breasted, as it is considered discriminatory for men to be permitted to and not women--and don't, seriously, try to tell me that a half-naked man isn't sexual while a half-naked woman is. The very simple fact of the matter is that it is not possible to define what 'sexual content' is in a neutral and globally culturally-appropriate way. Even a photo of actual sexual penetration may well be purely educational and not for the purposes of titillation.
Which then brings us to intent. While one could argue (emptily) that it is intent which matters, there are people out there who derive sexual gratification from clothing catalogues. Or shoes. Or lampposts. So intent is entirely a red herring. Thrydulf said above that Godwin has maintained as a non-commercial service we are not obligated to keep age records and releases. So there's that dealt with. It is fundamentally impossible for Commons to guarantee that the uploader of any image has the rights to that image; we do our best, and barring actual video of the photographer taking the pictures being uploaded with the pictures, we cannot be more sure than we are already. So there's that dealt with.
So this really becomes about O NOEZ TEH CHILDRENZ AND PRUUUUUUUUDES. WMF projects have a long and solid history of rejecting, flatly, attempts at censorship. You are online, you presumably have a brain, it is your responsibility to decide for yourself what you and your children will see. It is not our responsibility in any way. This comment by Stillwaterising is particularly telling; "Both admins are from either the Netherlands or Germany, both countries have different views of underage porn than most Americans". The cultural assumptions there are breathtaking! Newsflash: different countries have different conceptions of what 'underage' means (for example, most Europeans and Canadians are flabbergasted by the notion that one must be 21 to legally consume alcohol in the USA). More importantly, that comment starkly illustrates exactly what SWR is trying to do here: impose conservative American mores on a global project. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Roux (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And to get back on topic, there are definitions for pornography and child pornography when it comes to US federal law. You can read about it here. TheDJ (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Get back on topic? I never left it. Please explain why we should be using US definitions? Commons is a global project, colo hosted in Amsterdam and Florida. Godwin has, according to thrydulf, not said we need to do anything. So... we should use the US definition of pornography (wait a second, what's wrong with pornography?) for an Americentric proposal to censor a global project? Really? I think not. Roux (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh you were in rehash mode. Why bother spending so much time on those people who just want to drag these discussions. The American definition is important because it is the only definition that has potential legal consequences for the Foundation. So whenever we talk about child pornography for instance, that is the only definition that counts. TheDJ (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Because these people need to be shot down as firmly as possible. Censorship is evil. Kowtowing to American neo-puritanism is even worse. Roux (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not one of "these people" (whoever they are) but your framing is incorrect. This isn't about censorship or neo-puritanism, it's about myriad things, including respecting the rights of photograph subjects. AND about CYA for the foundation. ++Lar: t/c 10:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If it weren't about censorship or neopuritanism we wouldn't be calling it sexual content or defining pornography. QED. CYA for the foundation seems to be a red herring--unless you're aware of directives from WMF that haven't been told to the community? No? As for respecting the rights of photography subjects, how is that not covered by extant policies for addressing their rights? Why does sexual content (whatever that is) need to be singled out? Roux (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
How fascinating that neither of the only two people supporting this nonsense can rebut a single point I've raised. Telling, isn't it? Roux (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Stillwaterising left a message on my user talk page: "Thanks for your input. The answers to those questions are quite easily derived, however due to the current chaos I am no longer able constructivly (sic) contribute to the proposal." I'm not sure I see how the cross-talk prevents him from answering my question directly, and if I thought the answers were "quite easily derived" I would not have asked the questions. I still have no idea of the answer to any of these, and hence feel I still do not have any idea what is being proposed here.

To reiterate something I said elsewhere (sorry, can't remember where): I'd have no problem at all with a tag or tags that an uploader could use to tag images as having sexual content, nudity, etc. But this vague proposal seems to me not to get us any closer to something workable, and also seems to focus on censoring those images rather than merely identifying them. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

From an continental European point of view it be quite bizzare to use restrictive american "moral" standards on "sexual content". Using them worldwide might one of the biggest PR-desasters the Project will ever face in Europe.Nemissimo (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"In development"

This is ridiculously loaded language, presenting the eventual adoption of this page as policy as a fait accompli. It is a rhetorical tactic often used by Privatemusings ("This has been rejected" "Great, now we're talking about it!" "No, it's rejected, it's over" "Good, we're still discussing it!" etc ad nauseam), which has now been adopted by SWR. There is not an iota of support here for this proposal. Therefore it is not, in fact, 'under development'. Those two words imply that an end goal will be reached that will be implemented. Roux (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Let him "develop" it, and then it will be rejected with an overwhelming vote. No reason to make a fuss (yet). Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Except it already has been rejected. As Timtrent said, you can't polish a turd; this is the same old prudish nonsense as before, just painted a different colour. One doesn't develop things that have already been flatly rejected, one develops things that will eventually be implemented. I have sever objections to this language use, as they convey a deliberately false meaning to anyone who reads them. Roux (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
fully agreed TheDJ (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"ridiculously loaded language" ??? I think it's your rhetoric that is "ridiculously loaded". "In development" does not mean "fait accompli". Discuss matters on their merits using neutral phrasing. ++Lar: t/c 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In development implies eventual adoption. Given that there is massive consensus for rejecting all of this puritanical nonsense, the language is factually incorrect. Roux (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd agree with that, roux - are you sure you're making sense here? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am indeed quite certain I am making sense. Just as I am making sense when I say: you're doing it again. Stop. Roux (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
@Privatemusings: Please don't post until you are sure whether you agree or not. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
heh.. I was trying to be nice - apologies if my tone annoyed you. I think roux is being silly here - I don't agree with him. Privatemusings (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course you don't agree with me. I, and the other people who agree with me, am supported by funny things like 'policy' and 'reality.' Roux (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
@Privatemusings: 'Bearing false witness' isn't nice. And, anyway, I think you weren't trying to be nice, you were trying to anger Roux, so your protector would have an excuse to block yet another non-puritan contributor. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

not really all that crazy

I think I could sum up my position by saying that whilst I know we've discussed this over and over, it's time we started tagging explicit images. This is not so much so we can put them all in one place in the hopes of a mass purge, but because I do believe, as a project, we have not only a responsibility to the readership, who make up the vast majority of users of the Wikimedia sites, but also to third parties to offer a simple way to block those selfsame images.

Does that really sound all that crazy to anyone? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious ? Didn't you just go trough a round of "perhaps we should topic ban PrivateMusings?". TheDJ (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
@roux, don't get baited :D
well yes, I am serious - and I don't think the 'topic ban' idea was really a very good one. Whether or not you agree with the spirit, or letter, of the above post, it's not really all that unreasonable, or rational, is it? With a bit less polarity and argument, I reckon we could make some good progress.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It is perfectly fine, as long as I can tag all images of Muhammad, gay people and parodies of the Thai king. TheDJ (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention people wearing polka dots with plaid, which I personally find extremely offensive. Roux (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Topic bans are issued for behavior of an editor in a certain content area. They do not usually concern the opinion he spams around endlessly, but the method by which this opinion is professed. I think the repeatedly and in high succession opening of discussions that have just finished 5 days ago for the gazillionth time and wasting many an editor's time trying to defend their standpoints again, is a behavior that is a solicitation for a topic ban. TheDJ (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
heh... well I don't think that describes recent editing very well at all, DJ - I rather feel that the strong feelings are at least in part due to a wee bit of unhelpful intractability. I think if you pause for a mo. - read some of the various threads, and think about who's saying what, it all gets a bit easier..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You can sweet talk all you want PrivateMusings, but everybody understands your methodology. You try to work up people for so long that they become angered and do something stupid. That way you eliminate a player in your field. You say "unhelpful intractability" about other people but most people say the same thing about you, so it is a moot point. TheDJ (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
that's really not fair, dj - it's an unfounded assertion, and to be honest I feel more played that way, than a 'player' (if I was feeling mean, I'd mention 'projection' at this point) - I was hoping you might have a look at posts by people like User:Bastique and others (would you like some links?) and see if you might agree that there's plenty of basis for describing a broad support for some small, sensible measures in this area. It's my feeling that those who react very quickly and strongly to misrepresent (and likely misunderstand) the most gentle of proposals in this field are in danger of stymieing the wiki process - which is a great shame. Can you see what I mean at all? Privatemusings (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm more than familiar with the postings of Bastique. This is about your behavior, not about your proposals. TheDJ (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
ah - so we're in the wrong spot? - either ways, on the matter of substance you probably noticed I cheekily quoted Cary above (without attribution!) - essentially because his words describe my position most eloquently :-) So how best to talk about it? Privatemusings (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Write a book, write a blog, make another video, chalk it up in yet another user essay ? I don't know... anything that will keep you from revisiting this issue 3 times a month on either Jimbo's page, the mailinglists, Commons:Sexual content, the Wikipedia or Commons Village pumps (and that includes announcements of those first 4 items listed in those fora). If you are discussing this topic more than 4 times a year, you are draining editor resources and ignoring consensus instead of having a valuable discussion. TheDJ (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm well within that, no? I'm not sure I could be bothered with 3 times a month, to be honest, nor am I sure that it's really a good idea to define that as a drain anywhoo.... Have you had the chance to think about what Bastique said? What do you think a good next step in response would be? Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is clearly stated in that discussion and also on User:TheDJ/explicit. The next step was that Bastique's opinion was left without consensus, like so many discussions before them. Perhaps it is time we have one week every half year, where everyone can present his 'sexual content/nudity' proposal and everyone can vote on them with a copy paste of his response during the last discussion. Then we ban discussion of such proposals for the rest of the time and we can all get back to work for half a year after the voting. TheDJ (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Make what progress? You are doing the exact same thing again, Privatemusings. Allow me to recap. "Nobody wants this." "Good, I think we can make progress. I think this is a good idea!" "No, this is a bad idea." "I'm glad we're discussing this now." "We're not discussing it, this is rejected and dead and done." "Great, now that we're talking about it..."

Etc etc ad nauseam. The simple way for third parties to block images they find offensive is to not look at them. Roux (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

oh dear. I think you've sort of missed the point, roux. ps - would it be fair to ask you to try and play a bit nicer? You come across on the screen as rather abrasive, and a bit of a boob (although it does make me smile to read really quite a lot of posts about how you don't want to discuss anything ;-) Hope you're good anywhoo.... Privatemusings (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in 'playing nice' with people who refuse to listen. You have been told enough times to give up these nonsense crusades. Roux (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Everyone will play nice. Or they won't be allowed to play. Goes for everyone, not just you, but you may want to contemplate that. Then read COM:MELLOW a few times. ++Lar: t/c 10:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"Not everyone speaks your language. Even if it's English (don't be so provincial! :)..." I am not playing here, I am opposing the hypocisy of the neo-puritans who apparently believe that it is OK murder and pillage in Iraq and happily display the propaganda pictures of the US government, but get all worked up over a naked breast. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Non sequitur. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Quis/quid quem/quid/quos/quas/quae non sequitur? Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

notes and tags

Whilst I would rather what seems to me to be the more appropriate 'proposal' tag at the header of the page, there seem to be some knickers in many twists over this, so personally, I'd rather just not worry about whatever tags and notes sit atop the page - I just removed a note which referred to the ongoing nature of the proposal - explicitly stating that the proposal is not rejected, which was positioned directly below another tag which said it was!

Please can we aim for consistency at least? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposal (as it was written then) WAS rejected. There is a new proposal now. Time has passed. Circumstances have changed. It's possible (despite the vehement protestations of a few) that a new proposal will gain consensus, if it is carefully crafted. So the tagging wasn't inconsistent. Marking this as flat out rejected is wrong but perhaps the next section is the better way forward. Start collecting archives and construct any new proposals on subpages. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
well that's cool - but it is currently marked as rejected - it then immediately says 'the proposal should not be marked rejected' - I'll leave well alone, but take a look at the top of the page, and see if it makes sense to you :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As Timtrent said above, you can't polish a turd. You can add whipped cream and a cherry on top; you can cook it sous-vide for 12 hours and serve it with a compote of cherries and a creme anglaise, but underneath? It's still a turd, and only a user with a prolific history of IDHT and an acolyte are interested in continuing it. Roux (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
you know, I really wouldn't mind if you'd move on from poo references - it's putting me off my (unpolished) cake. Privatemusings (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
ps. do you think it's fair to say from this thread that there are in fact others who may share the feeling that it might be a good idea to talk about something? (it seems pretty straight forward to me - and I may be dreaming, but didn't Lar indicate somewhere that he felt discussion was, at this point, a good idea?) - but more importantly - who's the acolyte - me, Still, or someone else? Is there a formal title for someone who has an acolyte? What are the perks, and do I get dental cover? Can I accept further acolytes, or is there a limit? I'd encourage you to engage your prolific competencies at answering these important questions ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A total of three people think there may be something worth discussing here. A total of everyone else has wholly rejected this. Which is precisely what happened last time, and last time you wouldn't drop it either. Roux (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
dagnammit, you've dodged the important questions again! I might have known one as cunning as you could wriggle out of it ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for archival and new proposals

I propose to protect and archive the old version and the recent version of the proposal. The new page Commons:Sexual content will then state that there is currently no consensus or policy for tagging and/or filtering media related to sexual content. Any new versions of proposals will have to be prepared as subpages of Commons:Sexual content and be voted on individually. This in order to clearly reflect that there is no accepted proposal, and to give a clear overview on the primary page of how many proposals have been turned down already. It will probably be an equal amount of work, but at least visitors will be able to see how many times we have sat on the merry go round. TheDJ (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Lar. Roux (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, great idea. –Tryphon☂ 07:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Kameraad Pjotr 08:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
However there is a consensus against 'filtering media related to sexual content' based on neo-puritan prudity. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately, I don't think that's actually what is being proposed. ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Request How exactly would this work? What would be the name of the new proposal and who would be working on it? Is there any possibility of having a neutral admin as moderator to revert nonconstructive edits? - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Create a subpage (and associated talk), giving it a name that conveys some sense of the difference, or at least a date, and start working on a draft that can reasonably get to consensus. Incorporate the objections of those who feel the current policy is not suitable. Work collegially to understand and incorporate the diverse points of view until consensus can be reached. And, a moderator? No. ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If I work on new proposal(s) within my userspace (with new titles) can I moderate the discussion as I see fit? - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stillwaterising, how do you intend to moderate such a proposal in your userspace? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No you cannot. 'Moderating' a discussion--and let's be honest here, based on your behaviour to this point that will mean 'removing comments you don't like'--is anathema to the wiki way. Roux (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I can. The first sentence of w:WP:UP#OWN is "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." Working on a draft of a proposed guideline on a subpage is very much within guidelines and I have the right to revert anybody not invited to participate. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no. You have wide latitude on your user space, yes. But there are limits. If you really want to develop a proposal but you wish to exclude some folk, you may want to do that somewhere else. Proposals are subject to comment and improvement by all. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about a draft proposal being developed on a user subpage. When it's ready, it will be moved into mainspace along with an announcement on Village Pump. At that time it can undergo a period of community development followed by a vote on each proposal on whether or not they should be adopted. A small band of dissenters should not be allowed to stop this very important guideline/policy. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I can actually see what both Lar, and Still are on about - I think there's a sensible solution in the proposed 'sub-paging' above - I'll give it a go - everyone else seems to be sitting on their hands ;-) (or maybe they have their hands full?) Privatemusings (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

< okey dokey - that's my effort to implement the suggestion above :-) - thoughts? - I'd say now that Still, and anyone else with the time and energy to try and work up a decent proposal for perusal by a broader audience should head to Commons:Sexual_content/April_2010, and the related talk page - this might have the added benefit of a bit of a 'reboot' for discussions which seem to have run the risk of getting dragged down into a wee bit of nastiness.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmmm.... I had felt that part of the idea of taking all of the proposals out of the main page was to try and build a clear page which described what's gone on in terms of policy proposal here on commons thus far - Eric re-tagged the main page as 'rejected' - but I'm not entirely clear what's rejected? Doesn't seem to fit very well to me? I think the tag would be best removed. Privatemusings (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

...is not acceptable. I gave out a couple of blocks just now over it, because we all know better. Bring your disagreements to the talk page next time. I must ask, though, I thought we were going to archive this version and interested folk were going to start anew? ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

I have removed the 'definitions' section again, as irrelevant to a global project. SWR has rather conclusively proven that he is creating an Amerocentric proposal--in a recent edit summary he even suggested that people go create new Commons projects if they don't like the American way. Can we please kill this as what it is? Neopuritanical crusade to impose American mores and definitions on a global project? Roux (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are beating a dead horse. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No, that would be Privatemusings (shocking...) and Stillwaterising. I am attempting to give the rotten carcass a decent burial. Roux (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Removing an entire section is called section blanking and should be reverted as vandalism. If there's a better version of the definition post it below. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

proposals back for reference?

I noticed the proposals hop back onto the page 'for reference' - now that does have the benefit of making the 'reject' tag make more sense - but I kinda liked the sub-page idea. I thought maybe 'for reference' meant temporary, but is it more to do with making sure inbound links work well? - I think the previous navigation was pretty clear, and would be minded to return the page to the 'no proposals' state - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to the purpose of Commons:Sexual content at this point. If this page is meant to hold the final proposals derived by consensus to be approved by announced voting then these proposals should be cleared away (removed). However, if this page is meant to be an archive of a supposedly rejected proposal then it should look like it did when the consensus was made to create the subpages. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
my reading of the mini-consensus above is that this page is to be a description with links of the status quo, and of other related wikimedia pages - followed by some links to both past, present, and hey - future! proposals.... hence this page shouldn't itself contain any proposals, just a disinterested overview of the situation - is that any clearer? :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Labeling of prospective objectionable content

The recurring theme here seems to be the labeling of images with sexual content. There has been no clear explanation of what would happen after such content was labeled. On the one hand it could be that mass censorship would occur for all such images, or possible image deletion. (not that I think most editors would allow that.) On the other hand, it could be like when we in Usenet labeled all of the "objectionable" content with the 'alt' tag. (such as alt.sex.bondage). The end result of that was a massive growth, interest and distribution of that Usenet tree. Just the opposite of censorship.

In any case clearing away the many distractions made by those who wish to label images is that *if* this were done, it would need to be based on labeling all images on perceived objectionable content. Using sexual content would be only one category. Labeling based on violence, or religious offense (images of Mohammad, or an image of artwork such as Piss Christ, for instance). There are a number of prospective categories where an image could offendor be objectionable by a viewer.

I am not an advocate of this type of categorization. But if we were to feel that such categorization were constructive in some way (for instance to allow some future software update of commons to allow self directed content filtering by the individual user/editor) then we need to turn the focus away from sexual content, as that is just a veiled attempt at censorship, and towards a robust categorization such as is currently done by a number of content filtering software tools. We would then have to agree on those categories, such as violence, criminal and illegal content, occult, drugs, gambling, illegal drugs, intimate/swimwear, sex education, hate and racism, abortion, weapons, gay & lesbian, hacking, humor and jokes, nudity, women, men, children, (These roughly based on Sonic Wall categories[1]) and label content accordingly.

I think it is clear from this endless discussion that categorization based on sexual content, no matter how you spin it, is for the purposes of censorship by those who find sexual content to be objectionable. Lets turn the discussion away from that as the WMF community standards is, and will remain to be, that of not censoring content. That makes the discussion more in finding or not finding consensus for a broader categorization of content that would prospectively allow individual content filtering not focused on sexuality, but focused on enabling individual choice. Atomaton (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think (hope) it is clear that WMF does not intend to censor content, but we already tag some content to indicate that it may have legal issues in certain countries. For example, I believe we already do something like this with images of Nazi symbols. I could imagine doing something similar — with a separate tag in each case, or maybe some use of the category system — for things such as photographs of sex acts, non-photographic representations of sex acts, photographs of human genitalia, photographs of other mammalian genitalia, photographs showing naked female breasts, non-photographic representations of naked female breasts, etc. ad nauseum. This means someone would have to care enough to maintain these, of course, but perhaps those who consider this an issue would step up, and after all, someone is already maintaining categories like Category:Topless sitting women. I do have to wonder, though, what would happen with images like most of those in Category:Solstice Cyclists: lots of body-painted, but otherwise naked people there. - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention e.g. 'images of muhammad' 'uncovered female face' 'female ankle' 'person with gun' 'gay male'... shall I go on? The list of what may be considered offensive and/or illegal in any given culture is so unfathomably long that the focus on so-called sexual content--and indeed the insistence on using a very conservative neopuritanical definition--is telling. Roux (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you there, Roux. I'm against censoring Commons for political or sexually puritanical reasons any more than law requires: to me, educational value in these areas are as valid as in any other. (That does not mean radical inclusionism: an amateurish picture of a non-notable person's genitalia has no more place than an amateurish picture of a non-notable person's face.) The question is whether we wish to make fine-grained filtering easy or hard. I have no answer to that. I can see the argument of allowing a filter to be built that makes it more appropriate to allow access to Commons from, say, an elementary school. Conversely, I can see the argument of allowing a filter to be built that makes it easier for a prudish library system to prevent adults from seeing whatever they want to. Similarly for Nazi regalia: I live in a country that would consider it a breach of free speech to censor such material, but it's not hard for me to understand why some European countries disagree. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, if we have any tagging or labelling at all, it needs to be as fine-grained as possible. One primary school may wish to restrict labelled diagrams of genitalia of but allow its students to see photographs of naturist children, while another might want the exact opposite. A monolingual school (e.g. one where all lessons were taught in English) might degree that anatomical images labeled in English were educational but ones labeled in say Russian are not. I have no objection to labelling/tagging per se, just that if we do have it we must make it as useful as we can (tagging/labelling something as "Offensive" helps nobody, for example). Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Which of course begs the question as to who, precisely, is going to tag--how many is it now?--millions of images. Because if there's going to be tagging of any images, perforce all images must be tagged. Else that is simply inviting abuse of the system (which will occur anyway through deliberate mistagging, but nobody seems to be thinking about that. Or about the inevitable long-running fights over what to tag this or that.) Roux (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Deliberate mistagging would be vandalism and should be dealt with in the normal way we deal with vandalism (I'm talking about very obvious mistagging, e.g. tagging a drawing of a strawberry plant as a photo of sexual intercourse, not misguided or debatable tagging). As for debatable tagging, this is why all tags must be objective and well defined - it is possible to say objectively whether an image is a photograph of an uncovered adolescent human white male torso, it is not possible to say objectively whether this image shows "underage nudity" (I think I've raised this somewhere). I have definitely raised the issues of long-running fights and incomplete tagging being ineffectual somewhere, but I can't remember in which of the dozen or so places this was. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Archive_2&oldid=39038982"