Commons talk:Sexual content/Archive 8

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 7 Archive 8

3 Status quo handling of controversial content

what is the purpose of including section "3 Status quo handling of controversial content" in this document/proposal?

the section doesn't deal with sexual content specifically, insterad it talks in "generalities" about inclusion/exclusion of content.

also, it subtly revises some of the established commons' policies & guidelines written elsewhere, which is dangerously unwise.

if approved, those "re-interpretations" could easily be bounced back, as "quoted references" in other deletion debates, & used to justify MORE deletions (of other types of content).

whether this was the drafter's intention, or not, the section could be used to change other commons' policies on inclusion/exclusion, "through the backdoor"

it should either be HEAVILY revised, or eliminated from the draft entirely.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

vegetable sexuality and human sexuality

I tried to count how many images we have under Category:Flowers. If I did the math properly we have something like 30,000 images related to the sexuality of flowering plants, just under Category:Flowers.

Sure, flowering plants are important, Half or more of our food supply depends on flowering plants, as do some important natural fibers, like cotton and linen. But I suggest human sexuality is at least one order of magnitude more important.

I haven't seen anyone suggest we have too many images of flowers. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Really a false analogy. I'm rather anti-censorship, but the depiction of flowers is simply not controversial, while the depiction of human sexuality—or even mammalian sexuality—is. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not false at all. I believe Geo Swan is saying that we shouldn't be concerned with what's controversial, but with what's educational. Powers (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Controversial is relative. Human sexuality is not at all controversial where I am from.AerobicFox (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, controversiality is relative, and yes, we do need to be more concerned with what's educational, because that's the goal of Wikimedia, but I dare you to find a place where the depiction of flower reproduction or sexuality is controversial. We do need to be worried somewhat about what's controversial, and how to approach these media so that our editors aren't turned off.--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. Resolved.

Release form for sexual images as mitigation against child pornography

ResolvedA member of en:WP:FEMINISM contacted legal and found out they actually do have a policy on possible child pornography: [[1]].--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Same user also started a closely related discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Graphic_genital_photos. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We were directed here, and we moved the conversation.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there

Yesterday, the following pornographic photo (close up of a vagina being spread very wide open by a pair of hands) was found as an illustration on w:Vagina : Human_vulva_with_visible_vaginal_opening.jpg. It is a derivative work based on this image: Human_Vagina.jpg The source of the image is a protected account at Flickr, containing other sexually explicit images. The age of the female subject of this particular image is unclear. There is no certainty that she is an adult. The pubic area is hairless, and there is no visible sign of shaving. This is disputed. However it is actually irrelevant, since pubescent children have pubic hair. Rubywine (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC) The subject is certainly young and small in size.

People on Wikipedia talk pages

have suggested that Commons should require a release form from the subject of any sexually explicit image. This would reduce the possibility of Commons being used to host child pornography and would surely mitigate WMF's vulnerability to prosecution on those grounds. It would also address the related issue of getting the consent of adult subjects.

Has this idea been previously considered? Any comments?

Rubywine (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I slid my new one in there, I figured you wouldn't mind. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. You beat me to it. Rubywine (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that there should be some way to know that the people, or body parts, in the photos we are viewing are adults. I think there should be some sort of accountability to prevent child porn being uploaded to WP. As long as they are verifiable adults, I don't see a problem with these pics on WP. I've been starting to wonder is if WP has any policy for age requirements with sexually explicit photos? I know there is a policy for public/private pictures of individuals. If there is, could someone point me to it? If there isn't, why is one not set in place?
I was shown by someone else that Wikipedia is not required to check age and identity of "models" in their photos (at least in the US). But this doesn't wrap everything in a tidy package. I know why Wikipedia doesn't have to follow this rule: Wikipedia is not considered a porn site by the United States government. There is some entity, I'm not sure what division it is, that does keep track of the porn sites--they are required to keep rather detailed information about their models. Because Wikipedia is not considered a porn site by the country, then it goes through a loophole. But that doesn't mean that child porn is not uploaded to Wikipedia.
In any event, I think we need to figure out some sort of policy to hold people accountable for this sort of stuff. I'm not some crazy person trying to get rid of all nudes on WP. I just don't want child porn on Wikipedia, and the law in many countries is very specific on what they consider child porn.
I'd also like to say before anyone makes this some sort of finger-pointing thing--"Flickr is the one accountable, the uploader is" and such. We are talking about implementing a procedure so that we know that child abuse is not happening in the future. This can be dealt with on its own by an admin, if at all.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't believe child abuse will happen to put images on commons - and if it does, then having terabytes available for logging is probably a good thing, as child abuse FOR commons is even less likely. But I can see a potential role, however unlikely, of commons in distributing child porn and I can also see 13 year olds (I will not use 17 year olds: I prefer to illustrate an extreme example) who while it is not *really* child porn taking photos of themselves in intimate acts and ending up releasing such things to the internet forever... stopping that has to be a good thing. And record taking need not be onerous; it doesn't even have to involve people's real identities.
There is an alternative idea. How about an exhibitionist commons that has a community built in who polices such things? Egg Centric (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
We'd all like to believe that criminals are not this stupid but... Have you ever seen the American TV show w:To Catch a Predator? You can watch a few episodes here--it's a bit of Schadenfreude. I mean, since it has happened in the past, the chance of it happening again is high, and the chance of it happening right now is high. I don't mean to put us in a paranoid state, but I just think this is something that deserves immediate attention.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Just cause I'm anti kiddy porn doesn't mean I ain't ever read 4chan (after all, is there an internet without it? ;)), so I am familiar with Chris Hansen etc. But the key difference is those men thought they were going to get laid. There was an incentive for them to be reckless. I can't see any reason at all to upload child porn to commons, hence why I didn't think it would happen at all. I've since been pointed to an instance of two images being deleted. OK, so there are some... well frankly I hesitate just to call them perverts, they're actually mentally ill I would say if they were to upload child porn here, given how easy it is to track them (and again I ask whether there's a policy on that saying they will be reported, cause there should be)... but yeah, there's some of them. But there can't be many. Probably 100-1000 times more men will shag a fifteen year old than would post child porn on wikimedia. Hell, since I'm in the UK I could imagine sleeping with someone under some US ages of consent, which I understand can go up to twenty one years old. That's natural and you won't convince me otherwise (told you I was liberal!) but you can convince me there is a paedophile problem on commons, it's just you haven't given me enough info yet. Egg Centric (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say we both agree, though, that it should not be on the commons or WP at all, regardless--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not going to click on the lick to the image if it is reasonably (not remotely) plausible that it is child pornography. This is not just because of personal disgust or moral reasons (although I would be lying if I pretended they didn't play a part). There is also the fact that I work at home 90% of the time, need this internet connection, and don't want my bloody computers seized. Lack of pubic hair is not a reasonable reason to think this (unless the skin looks really, er, tbh I don't have the vocabulary for this but let's say smooth and everyone knows what I mean) but looking actually pre-pubescent in may be. Could someone who is prepared to take the risk, or already has looked at it, please clarify. If it's an image of a seventeen year old then that's a risk I will take. But scary descriptions of possible child porn... I'm not. So how likely is it? Egg Centric (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I've already said that it isn't clear whether or not the person is an adult. Whatever you do with that information is up to you; the image is provided as a reference. You don't need to look at it to comment on the topic. Rubywine (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the point is we don't know. And for future reference there should be policies set in place.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps but I do need to look at it to know how reasonable it is to think it is of an underage model or not. But as I said, I'm not prepared to without more details.
Having said that, this is illustrating your point excellently. I am perhaps being over cautious about this image; but it shows how risky this stuff is. And I'm someone who has very liberal opinions on this kind of thing, so if I'm pretty much with you I can't see who has been opposing you before.Egg Centric (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Although I'm not taking a position on whether a release form is a good idea or a bad idea (it's a tradeoff of risk versus contribution volume), I will note (as I said on VP) that we have no legal obligation to keep such documentation. User:MGodwin, who at the time was the head lawyer officially representing the Foundation, stated: "First, I have to officially disclaim any notion that I'm acting here as a lawyer for editors -- I represent the Foundation only. That said, my view is that there is no Foundation or project obligation to keep records pursuant to the models in uploaded photographs. The obligation is generally understood to apply to the producers of such images, and we're not the producers. Obviously, those who actually produce images such as those described by Secs. 2257 and 2257A may have recording obligations, but there is no duty for us to ensure that they do keep such records." Dcoetzee (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
But he didn't mention whether we have a duty to state who holds and where the records are held. In my reading of the actual 2257 legislation we do (IANAL). And even if it wasn't the law, it seems like it would be a commonsense policy to me. --99of9 (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You guys do not get the point. The only reason WF does not have that obligation, at least in the US, is because the US govt does not consider it a porn site. But to point fingers and say that's all on the uploader does nothing to keep child porn from being uploaded on WC, which is actually what the point of this conversation is--to prevent child porn from being uploaded. So what you are implying, at least what I have gotten from it, is "Who cares, it's not WF problem if child porn is uploaded." And the cops don't really care about technicality when they find something like that. They go after who owns the server and who uploaded it. I'm raising it because I care about child abuse, but WF should also care from a legal perspective. They cannot hold some flimsy excuse up when the cops come a'knockin.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hypothetically, if there were child pornographers uploading their work to Wikipedia do you think they would really just stop abusing those children when they find out they couldn't? I find that claim the we could do anything to combat the production of child pornography extremely dubious. Extransit (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are you actually saying it's going to happen anyway so we might as well not do anything on WP to make sure these images aren't uploaded to WC? Seriously??? Not doing so is to enable child abuse, and due to my profession I have a duty to report when I suspect child abuse. Taking a pornographic photo of a child is, itself, abuse. Uploading it to the internet is also abuse. If you have it on your server, you are an accomplice to this act. No one is claiming that this would put an end to all child abuse--I'm not sure where you got that idea. But in this situation inaction actually does enable the abuser. Let me use an analogy if you are not clear on this. Drinking and driving are illegal for obvious reasons. But for some reason people still do it. And cops keep arresting people who do it. You don't say to a cop, "Hey do you really think that people will just stop drinking and driving if we keep arresting people?" It doesn't matter. It's illegal and it's wrong.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
@Henrietta: As far as I know, no, there is no legal obligation for us to keep contact information for the 2257 records holder. However I agree that it would be very useful for us to do so wherever possible, in order to make commercial reuse in the US more practical. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, the fact that there is no legal obligation to keep records does not exclude WP from getting booked on distributing child pornography if it is found on its servers. It's not a magic rule. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
WMF does not get “booked on distributing child pornography if it is found on its servers” unless WMF itself put it there. See e.g. Section 230. --Mormegil (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If something is discovered to be child porn of course it would be deleted immediately, otherwise the onus is legally and morally on the uploader. Such a policy is legally unnecessary —we are an image hosting service we have to take people at their word that their claims to ownership of the images are legitimate— and would be ineffective even if implemented —child pornographers who are already breaking the law by uploading to commons are hardly going to worry about filling in an incorrect age in a template—. Extransit (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"the onus is legally and morally on the uploader"
Well, sure tell that to the cops. See what they say.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is terrribly US-centric- and seems to be dosed in a form right wing rhetoric that is more in tune with American political concerns than with the aims of Wikimedia. US law is important due to the location of the servers, and it will be an upheaval to move them but there are other legal systems which have defined different limits. There seem to be too many POVs being stated as fact and the biggest danger here is creeping censorship, and mitigation against child pornography is a known buzzword used by the pro-censorship lobby--ClemRutter (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What a pile of toss. I wrote the title of this topic. I am Australian, I live in London, I am left wing, and I couldn't care less about pornography made by consenting adults. I've been on Commons twice before yesterday, so if I'm a pro-censorship lobbyist I'm the world's most lethargic one. As for your "known buzzword", a Google search on mitigation against child pornography produces two (2) search results, both linked to this discussion. Oh but thanks awfully for the heads up about the planned server move and the reasons behind it. I'm sure you'll be very well thanked by everyone for that press announcement. Rubywine (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Ha! The only person who would consider mitigation against child pornography a buzzphrase is a person who has been living under a rock and is too naive to know the legal implications of having these photos on your servers. Sure, I will call this censorship. But who the fuck cares? So are you really saying that you believe that we should not censor explicitly sexual photos of children? I posted up there that these sort of photos have been posted to WP in the past--and to believe it won't happen again, and isn't currently happening is extremely naive. My personal views on censorship are not an issue here, because the cops don't care about technicalities when they find suspicious explicitly sexual photos. And yes, the people who own the servers that they are on are held accountable--they are considered distributors. The people who upload them are held accountable--they are also distributors. I suggest you read up on US child abuse laws. And if WP did a pick up and run from Florida, that would be considered especially suspicious. Also I am a democrat and I voted for Obama, but I'm not sure what my political belief has to do with suggesting WP get their act together with this.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to be personally abusive. There is less need to use bad language. To answer your question: Creeping censorship is a major concern to wikimedia users. You posted your concern- trust the community to act- they have addressed this many times in the past. Thank you on suggesting that one acquaint oneself further with US law- but that is only one of many legal systems one needs to be familiar with French, German, Dutch and GB are all different and have differing ideas on how to protect copyright and their children. In such a minefield one is wise to follow the steps of others who have discussed this before and trust them. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Rubywine wrote: "The pubic area is hairless, and there is no visible sign of shaving."
I have to question Rubywines eysight after that statement. The woman in question is very clarly shaved and have visibly stubble on her mons pubis. /Esquilo (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have 20/20 vision, so I'm prepared to believe there's signs of stubble that I can't see. On the other hand, most young teenagers have pubic hair, and all that this particular image does is illustrate a general principle. Look, seriously: there has been child pornography uploaded to this site previously, so this isn't a hypothetical issue. There is a legitimate cause for concern about the ease with which illegal material can be uploaded here. Rubywine (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I dunno about you, but I started growing public hair when I was eleven years old. The matter of pubic hair existing is irrelevant. We have no idea if that pic is a teen or adult. But there are other reasons to question, such as the coloring of the vagina. But again it's all irrelevant here.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we opening this discussion AGAIN ? Sorry, i can't be bothered to participate anymore. People who want to throw out everything just a little bit controversial will clearly always exist. Throw it all out please. I'm tired. baby, bathwater. Can Europe get it's own Commons please ? TheDJ (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to other users in this discussion, I only comment on things I know. Not things I do not know. I only pointed out that the woman in question is shaved. I do not try to guess her age. /Esquilo (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Short summary of last time 2257 was raised
  • Who keeps the papers ? Who is paying for keeping the papers.
  • How do we know a person is who he says eh is ? We serve 250 countries. We would need to hire a professional identity paper specialist to visit every single person in REAL LIFE somewhere on this planet in order to get even close to knowing someone is who he says he is. End even then people cross many borders with false papers every single day.
  • We are NOT required to keep the documents in the first place...
  • We have our own judgement
  • What about a 1911 sculpture of a child ? Are we gonna throw away pictures of that ? Where is the line ?
  • Will we throw away all the material that we currently have ?
All in all, the system won't work, and will put a huge resource burden on everyone, with no added benefit. If it is clearly childporn, we throw it away. If an image is dubious we can discuss it and possibly throw it away if needed. Now please go read the pages of history on talk page. Really, it's funny and it will teach you a lot about the history of controversial images on Commons. The matter is incredibly complicated. TheDJ (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, which although very rude was at least informative and rational. (For your information I've never heard of 2257 before.) I'll think about what you've said. Can you point me to the previous discussion, please. Rubywine (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
"although very rude" yeah, that's what you get when ppl have to continuously defend current policy. It gets very tiring. "Can you point me to the previous discussion" Yes, they are called the archive links, and the many links that they itself contain. They are right here at the top of this very page. TheDJ (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI. Now we have the header "release form for sexual images as mitigation against child pornography". The sounds very "reasonable" when you first read it, no one contents that it is NOT reasonable. The issue with the whole discussion however is more easily to spot with an earlier header that User:Henriettapussycat used for this when raising it on en.wp "No policy for age checks on sexually explicit photos". The issue here is "age checks", if there was a PROPER and WORKING system of age and identity verification on the Internet (let us not forget that we extend far beyond the US), then everyone would already know about it, and many parties would be using it. But that system doesn't exist, and us lonely wikipedians won't be able to create it. A government might be able to create it, but the Internet will resist vehemently. To see how a corporate attempt at this would be working, you only have to look as far as Google+. This piece for instance clearly highlights how fundamentally broken that system is, and that it only creates a 'veneer' of security, easily thwarted by those that want to thwart it, and those that WANT to do this, are exactly the type of people that we are trying to identify. Ergo the pointlessness of the system, we are proposing to identify those that don't WANT to be identified and those that in the past have proven to be highly skilled at circumventing and deceiving those systems. TheDJ (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Some fair points there and I'll think them over. What I want to say to you right now is this. Your initial response to my enquiry was really poor. People have every right and reason to visit here looking for answers to pornography-related questions - let alone how an image like Human_vulva_with_visible_vaginal_opening.jpg ends up illustrating a Wikipedia article. If you're so sick and tired of defending your policy over and over, whose fault is that? You need to get your acts together collectively and write yourselves a clear policy document explaining your goals and values, who decided those, the complexity of the situation and how you've reached your policy conclusions (it's amazing what you can do with a Wiki when you try). You've got to recognise that Wikimedia isn't a private club, it's an international non-profit. The onus is on Wikimedia to explain to the world exactly what you're doing and why. On the strength of today's conversation, you should expect more visitors, more questions and more discussion. Rubywine (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • *Who keeps the papers ? Who is paying for keeping the papers.
Obviously someone has to be appointed to that. Since WP works on donations--who keeps the papers for that? This has to be reported to the government, as you know I'm sure. If people can be set up for that, then surely people can be set up for this.
*How do we know a person is who he says eh is ? We serve 250 countries. We would need to hire a professional identity paper specialist to visit every single person in REAL LIFE somewhere on this planet in order to get even close to knowing someone is who he says he is. End even then people cross many borders with false papers every single day.
Trivial, derailing. Security checks do not have to be done on all pics, just sexually graphic pictures that include nudes. How do we know anyone online is who they say they are. No, we do not have to hire "professional identity paper specialists". For example, on porn sites what is done is they ID the models and keep that information on file. Wow, you don't know much about how porn laws and this stuff works overall do you? Anyway, this is a straw man and you know it is. Don't do this again.
  • We are NOT required to keep the documents in the first place...
As explained before numerious times by me, that is because WP is not considered a porn site by the federal govt. But that doesn't mean that the feds won't go after WP at any time for having child porn on their servers, and this is a flimsy excuse to hold up that would never defend anyone in a court of law. Think about covering your asses, because this surely won't.
  • We have our own judgement
This is invalid. The govt has their own judgement, and that's all that matters.
  • What about a 1911 sculpture of a child ? Are we gonna throw away pictures of that ? Where is the line ?
Artwork does not follow these rules, at least in the US. You need to learn about the laws in your own country.
  • Will we throw away all the material that we currently have ?
Probably not, if you can get all the users to sign with proof that these pictures are of people who are of legal age--that is ID or such. I mean, then if they aren't willing to do it, then you delete it. And is that a problem in terms of legality/covering your asses? If you would rather get called out by the cops be my guest.
The point that these people are highly skilled at circumventing these systems? How is that an excuse not to implement these measures? "Well people will get around it anyway so let's just not bother." You've got a lot of great points in a way to derail this conversation off the main point: having pictures which can not be identified could be child porn and could be a legal shitstorm for Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wants to take that chance, then I guess they can do that, but the fact is, many, many websites are not, and do not allow users to upload pictures like this. Wikipedia is frankly a weird exception to the rule, and I think it's because developers were too naive to realize that would happen.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any real problem behind all this talk? The Flickr account the image cited at the thread's top came from is accessible to any adult (only some of the more explicit images are now apparently friends-only), and looking at the account and its images you can see quite easily this is a couple with exactly one (1) female model, namely the female half of that couple. There are plenty of images where you can see almost everything of her, and it is quite easy to determine that she is definitely not underage anywhere, quite on the contrary, she's quite grown up. In fact, we have several other images from this Flickr account at Commons, have a look here. So: No sign of any kiddie porn, no need for this debate, everybody move along please. --Rosenzweig τ 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Put simply, the image that started this discussion is not pornography. It's an plain straight-forward photograph of the anatomy, and the derivative work done is the appropriate labeling of the anatomical structures. No sexual activity is shown or suggested. I find it hard to imaging anyone being actually excited by it, though of course people vary. The individual is totally unidentifiable, and there is no particular reason to think it a minor; as I understand it, the size and extent of hair is quite variable. What is possibly pornographic in some sense and certainly inappropriate is the nom's extended speculation of whether or not there are signs of shaving or immaturity; bringing this here to use as an example for such discussion is what sexualizes the image, which was deliberately presented here to discuss in a sexual context. (Though it is true that the context of the Flickr account is certainly sexualized, and does show explicit sexual activity--in some of the other pictures.)
of more concern is that such an innocuous image was used as the example for a major policy change. This would indicate to me that either 1/ there is nothing more sexual and possibly of a minor to be found on commons, or 2/ that the people supporting this policy have a very extended concept of what is pornographic. DGG (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Has the point totally gone over your heads? Were you humming "Camptown Races" in your head while reading the rest of the conversation? The point is not this one picture. The picture sparked a question of why aren't photos checked for age when posted on WP. (And to say that pic ain't porn is ridiculous, have you never seen porn in your life? I don't care if adult porn is posted on WP honestly, but that picture is clearly for pornographic purposes--I have seen enough porn to know.) And for your information, you cannot look at a person and know if they are of age. You might say that for people over thirty, but it is very subjective otherwise. Having pubic hair, having a period, and having breasts does not make you an adult. I had all of these things before I was considered an adult by law. And the people who are too naive to think that WP would not get into serious legal trouble do not understand the way the law works pertaining to child abuse.
Also I don't know about you, but I have no idea if the female giving a blow job there is an adult or a teenager. I can't magically tell.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, what is written on the project page, "Don't upload illegal content," is not Wikipedia covering its asses. No judge would say, "Oh! Well you told people not to upload it so it's okay then!" Even if a website is not by law considered a porn site, it is still required to monitor the photos uploaded to make sure they are not of underage individuals. So WP is not required to keep detailed information. So what? It's still required to make sure that child porn is not uploaded. And what Rubywine and I are suggesting is that there be a way to make sure child porn is not uploaded and make sure WP does not find itself in a legal shitstorm. To be blase about it is to be ignorant of the way the law works.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
No, a web server provider is not required to monitor all uploaded content. That’s the point of safe-harbor provisions, e.g. Section 230. --Mormegil (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
So because WP is not required to monitor this content due to Section 230, according to others, we should not bother with this because child abuse will happen anyway and this is ridiculous to try to implement? Copyright violations are easily implemented on the site due to the high amount of self-monitoring by other users. Wikimedia is already monitoring content. I'm not sure how this is such a hard issue or too much to ask.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to volunteer your time to review and post for deletion any likely child pornography you find. Just beware of crying wolf, as with the anatomical photo at the start of this discussion. Postdlf (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Your misconceptions aside, what exactly are you proposing? Copyright violations are removed as soon as any user notices them and marks them as such. Are you trying to say that if somebody spots a child pornography picture here and reports it to admins, the picture will not get deleted? Nonsense. So, what do you want to change? --Mormegil (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"The pubic area is hairless, and there is no visible sign of shaving" Why does the thread start with such an obvious false statement? You can clearly see that the pubic area is shaved. So we can fairly assume that the "subject" isn't a child any more. Additionally there is no pornographic content. Even after US law a sexual conduct or it's indication is required. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess there's an area where standards disagree, and then there is stuff that everybody agrees is wrong. A few years ago it occurred to me that the "so cool" heralded appearance of the Harry Potter star nude in a play at age 17 in England, and appearances of naked children in anthropological films of aboriginal cultures would both be considered "child pornography" in many places in the US, and such is a case of differing standards in different places. And who knows what is illegal in places where "illegal" is defined by Islamic law. But other items would be condemned worldwide. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Pussycat, believe it or not there are actually many people far more qualified than you to determine the legal implications of childporn on Wikipedia. Lawyers who are paid to look into this and many users who do know what they are talking about have both agreed to what extent Wikipedia needs to monitor for childporn, and it does not include requiring background checks on everyone who uploads a sexually explicit photo. Instead of pretending to be legally versed in childporn or reminding us of the "duty" of your "profession" to report childporn or of your concern for child abuse you should stick to addressing the various legitimate points that other users have already made clear. To summarize:
    • A picture of a nude child is not inherently pornographic. We have many pics with children who are nude from starving children in Africa who don't even own clothing to newborn babies. Charging a picture like this which is clearly anatomical in nature with being child porn would need a much stronger assertion than "that picture is clearly for pornographic purposes--I have seen enough porn to know." In cases that actually are ambiguous their are much more sophisticated ways to determine if something is childporn such as the Miller Test, or the Dost Test.
    • "Artwork does not follow these rules, at least in the US. You need to learn about the laws in your own country." As far as this quote goes it seems as though you have no idea how contested the line between art and child porn has been here on Wikimedia as well as in real life. Please actually read something on this matter and address other users before lecturing others on things you know nothing about.AerobicFox (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
      • This type of patronising, personally offensive attack is totally unacceptable. You have no knowledge of how well qualified Henrietta is. Where exactly is this policy of yours? Publish it, if you're so confident about it. The only sign of any legal comment I've seen here is a couple of sentences buried on an archive page. Your comparison of pictures of nude children playing, let alone starving unclothed children, with a close up of a widely spread vagina is ludicrous and irrelevant to this entire discussion. And have you actually read the Miller Test or the Dost Test? This photograph is indisputably pornographic by the standards of the Dost Test, and as for the Miller Test, it is heavily criticised and totally impractical for use in an non-judicial, international context. In summary, your comments are just laughable. Rubywine (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but I don't need a lecture on courtesy from the two most disruptive and patronizing users here, you and pussycat. I do not know what her qualifications are, but I can more than reasonably infer what her qualifications are not which clearly includes anything regarding the law. The rest of your post contains ludicrous statements wrapped up ironically in an indignant tone to my response, things like: the photo meets the Dost test, that we need be concerned with things in an "non-judicial, international context", or that you have demonstrated the courtesy in your above posts that would even suggest that you are serious about common courtesy and not in chastising editors who disagree with you. If you want to soapbox about the dangers of child porn then there are more appropriate places than a volunteer community trying to spend its time on productive things.AerobicFox (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Foxy, you just continue reading Derailing for dummies and relying on these magical lawyers, and see how far that gets you. I'm not even suggesting we do background checks or go that far, I just believe there should be a policy change for reporting suspicious photos. It's already done with copyright checks, so I don't see any reason not to. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
"Magical lawyers" lol. As for a policy of reporting suspicious photos, that would accomplish nothing more than an ordinary deletion request. "Copyright checks" as you call them consist entirely of doing an image search for said picture to find its origin and see if it is owned by someone else, and that is far easier to do then to demand of an uploaded that they prove their identity and the identity of the subject that they are photographing. If you want to go ahead and try to run a background check then go ahead, seriously, try to find out the identities of just a couple nude photos on commons and then come back and argue about how simple it was.AerobicFox (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If you care so much, nothing is stopping you from doing all the confirming you want. Here is 108 close-ups of glans penises that you can check each one for in order to make sure it doesn't belong to a minor. We have 1000's of nude photos you can verify. Don't expect to be able to force other editors to join your personal crusade though.AerobicFox (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • We definitely don't host any child porn (as in child and pornography, both conditions apply worldwide).
  • That Wikimedia would be shut down is very very unlikely, since it is not responsible for the content that users upload, as long they aren't informed about misuse. Don't wonder, Google has this problem all the time, since it can't ensure that it might find some of such content. But they will need to remove it. So there is no danger for Wikimedia to be shut down. That is fantasy.
  • Apparently not. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm

Ok, based on the above I worked up some courage and looked at the pic. I can't see how anyone could think that the model was underage. It's therefore difficult for me to AGF, I feel like I've been a bit of a patsy here... Egg Centric (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. Resolved

Request for Comment - Making changes to search results

Please see discussion at Commons:Requests for comment/improving search. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Archive_8&oldid=123062147"