Commons talk:Sexual content

  Commons talk:Sexual content/Archive1

New Jimbo proposal

As stated by Jimbo, this is still a proposal in development, but shows the general direction the board decision will likely take. Please discuss here, but stay nice. TheDJ (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse this view, and thanks for the reminder. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping needed?

We now have a loose end with the April 2010 stuff, which was our current "most current" draft. I think Jimbo's draft kinda supersedes that so another round of reshuffling and archiving might be needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) 6 May 2010 @ 16:03 (UTC)

Comments

I'm sorry, but "Commons is not censored" is now becoming "No images of sex whatsoever?" And no exemption for artwork, so we'd better go and delete the Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, despite being one of the best-known ukiyo-e.

This is an ill-thought out knee-jerk proposal, which fails to make important exemptions, and tries to claim censoring isn't censoring. We don't need to be Wikiporn, but at the same time, saying things are never appropriate is going too far. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Either the WMF board as an entity needs to make a pronouncement, or Jimbo needs to, ahem, step away from ther keyboard. Random dictatorial decrees from the little god-king don't and should not have any more effect than anything said by any other contributor. Particularly when WMF legal counsel has said 2257 doesn't apply to us. Roux (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is arguing that 2257 applies to us legally. Please remember not to engage in personal attacks, it is entirely unhelpful. I expect the Foundation board and/or staff to make a formal statement about this within a few days. The question is not going to be whether we are going to be a porn server.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it was just one of the content criteria that were being suggested for determining what type of content would no longer be allowed in the project TheDJ (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And, you know, it's not like I even object to deleting images which are redundant and low quality compared to others of the same type, or which serve no encyclopedic purpose. It's the fact that blanket prohibitions, without even any wiggle room for sensible exceptions are being thrown down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam, please take another look at what I wrote. This is preliminary. It is not ill-thought out nor is it knee-jerk. What it is - is a rough start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited it a bit. Others have, why not me? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should edit it. Take a look at User:Wikipr0n first. This is not a fight about historical images. It is not about images that have educational value. It's about really stupid stuff that is going to get deleted. Please help formulate a policy that does the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited COM:PORN. Tell me what you think. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo: I reacted so strongly because of the edits by TheDJ, which I thought were your words: [1] and [2]. A blanket prohibition, with no wiggleroom, which includes even spanking or images of the vagina one single person thinks is sexy? No. That's horrible policy to be held to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the problem with things like these is that deletion will always go as far as the most prudish admin's preference, which means that much of what should, in any reasonable judgement, be acceptable, will get deleted. That addition is a good example: It's possible for a picture to be sexual and encyclopedic, especially if it's illustrating sexual cultures, but his additions explicitly forbid so much, claiming they're out of scope, that it would become impossible to illustrate many encyclopedic articles. For instance, if S&M is always forbidden as being supposedly "out of scope", how would one illustrate an article on S&M, for instance? I'm pretty sure one can make encyclopedic images that illustrated it, but that addition would say they'd have to be deleted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that I'm personally in the exact opposite camp. I have held back these changes for a very long time. It is only per the direction of Jimbo and the board that I'm working within those directives. On a personal level, I heavily oppose them, think they are childish and they are typical american prudism. But my personal opinion is no longer relevant here. TheDJ (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete first, discuss later?

While I am glad that something is done about content on Commons that serves no educational purpose (though I am a little surprised at the sense of urgency and suddenness that seems to characterize the initial discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales), I do have a question.

From the beginning, one of the key points in this new policy was that "things should just be speedy deleted and argued about later" (Jimbo Wales, 01:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)). I suppose this works for Commons sysops, who are able to view and assess the usefulness of deleted files, but how exactly are editors of other Wikimedia projects supposed to argue about or discuss images which they can no longer view and for which no record of discussion exists?

I have no desire (nor, really, the ability) to stand in the way of this change, but I ask that the manner of its implementation be considered a little more and be a little more considerate of the limited technical abilities of editors of other WMF projects. Thank you, Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I had the exact same question. Indeed it's impossible for non-admins to argue about a file they can't see ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't matter when Jimbo (just another user unless he's speaking on behalf of the board, which he isn't) has decreed it shall be thus. And in this case, 'thus' means 'bulldozing all other cultural mores in favour of narrow American conservative viewpoints.' Bad form for a global and educational project. Roux (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The inability of the wider community to assess these speedy deletions is also compounded by the nature of these images. Even those admins that can access these images might not be in a position to do so due to concerns about been seen viewing some of them. I wouldn't want to look at these images at work so it just makes it even less likely that proper scrutiny of the speedy deletions will be possible. Adambro (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether Jimbo's concept becomes the final or not. And wether or not the "speedy-first/undelete-later"-policy will become our standard for sexual content. I think we should not forget that it is not our policy just yet. Don't start mass-deleting before we've got it all figured, there's no rush ! As Jimbo said himself: Relax !.

I'm mostly neutral in this matter, I'm not very active in this part of Commons, but for the part that I have been I didn't actually noticed any problem with the way it was: Files are nominated regularly and after a short discussion deleted as appropiate.

For one I'd like to refer to our Speedy-policy, and two I support Deletion requests per image or per set, but certainly not to leave it up to the admins to decide wether an image should be deleted. I've seen quite a few files come by in logs with deletions on Commons and watchlists entries with unlinkings on wiki's – because some admins are already acting on this draft.

About that COM:SPEEDY: Last I checked this page: unless a file is corrupted, previously deleted, fair use or pure vandalism/spamming it should not be speedy deleted. Out of scope has been a reason for a deletion nomination, not speedy deletion. If you, as an admin, believe about a dozen files all together are very alike and should be deleted because of sexual content that is out of our scope, just nominate them in a one bigger nomination; wait it off for a seven days and delete it then as appropiate. If you feel the need to do this quick, then it might be that angel from inside telling others will oppose it's deletion. Althemore reason to nominate. My 2 cents, –Krinkle^talk 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Since Jimbo's announcement 17 hours ago, approximately 300 files have been speedy deleted citing Commons:Project scope and/or Commons:What Commons is not. Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents. As far as I know speedy deletion are for the following things only: Copyrighted or fair use material, badly named files (uploader request), vandalism/attacks, corrupted, previously deleted. Anything else, anything, should have a deletion request opened and be discussed by the community. If the image is truly objectionable, then the community decision will be "delete". If the community finds it acceptable, it will be "kept". This is the only way files that are not in the aforementioned speedy category can be deleted. They cannot be deleted due to a admin's consideration of them as "laviscious", etc. If they are illegal to view or host, or they are not freely licensed, then of course speedy deletion is required. Otherwise, a DR needs to be opened, and the "lavisciousness" must be discussed with the community. Then it can be deleted.
• Making a special case for certain kinds of images is against this - who is to judge the merits of the image? The one speedying admin? We would not tolerate a radical homophobe deleting images of a gay pride march claiming that they were offensive (they can of course open a DR and get shot down, though), so why should we tolerate admins speedying things they deem lavicious?
• Furthermore, Jimbo Wales comment that "Remember, there is no hurry to undelete things - nothing is permanently lost - and things mistakenly deleted in the cleanup can be undeleted in the fullness of time after a calm discussion. is totally out of order. The DR process exists so that people can view the image (any people) and decide. If the image has been speedied, only admins can see it, and no meaningful discussion can be had by the wider community.
• To be clear, my objection is not the deletion of low-quality, pointless or offensive content, my objection is that admins are speedying things based on a half-baked comment from Jimbo Wales without discussion. Cleaning up the dreck on Commons is a huge task, but this is not how it is done, and I am shocked at how the founder condones such irresponsible actions by admins. Inductiveload (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Inductiveload, this is a special case. We are engaging in a large-scale cleanup project here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, Jimbo seems determined to have things done in a rush: "admins are requested and supported in efforts to be vigorous and get this done in a timely fashion" [3]. –Tryphon^☂ 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been tempted to begin deletion reviews for as many pictures as I can to protect them from being speedied, but that would be making a point.KTo288 (talk)

Thank you for not doing that KT0288 - but do feel free to work on that as a project if you like, in the fullness of time. I think at this point, it is premature to do a lot of deletion review, unless something was clearly done in error.

I am hopeful to see a lot more speedy deletion today and tomorrow. This is a cleanup project.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Some other questions

I do have other questions :

1. How was File:Mammary intercourse with dildo.jpg connected to one of the 5 cases of "actual or simulated acts" ?
2. Isn't the word "lascivious" too subjective to be applied ? (I know the law states that but I really wonder if they really thought about it).
3. How ejaculation is understood by the law ? Strictly speaking it seems to fail in none of the 5 cases.
4. Isn't exagerate to say that any smiluated act is outlawed ? Such as this one ?
5. What about non-human masturbation ?!

--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

1. That one was more likely deleted for being low quality
2. US courts use the w:Miller test in these cases, so we would probably have deletion discussions about such images in the future. But if we have a non-lascivious image, the lascivious image is redundant, and can be deleted for that reason.
3. Ejaculation is sexual conduct and would fall under the deletion criteria in my reading.
4. That one would also probably require discussion indeed.
5. A good question.

TheDJ (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ceeeeennnnnsorship. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct, the foundation is applying censorship of content by limiting the scope of the project. TheDJ (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing the scope of content to be consistent with the Foundation's mission is not censorship. But if you want to view it that way, I'm fine with that. The main thing is that policy will be enforced, and the pornography will be deleted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Record keeping

One question I do have here, is there any method by which we could obtain records sufficient for the purposes of 18 USC 2257? There is potential educational value in some explicit imagery after all, and a 2257 specific template for those we have those records for would easily allow tracking of those images. If its technically feasible to arrange this, then its something to look into - that is unless the board says "no explicit images".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading the words of Jimbo on his talkpage, the latter is the intention. We will not start keeping records or require others to keep records as far as I can derive. TheDJ (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Then Jimbo is an idiot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd feel happier if the feasibility of record keeping was looked into: Can the WMF do this at all and if so how? I can certainly accept that some explicit imagery that would trigger 2257 requirements is in scope. If its relatively easy, we could then do record keeping for the stuff that's in the borderline area even if the explicit imagery is all deleted - if its not possible we know that and that would make the deletions slightly easier to accept.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Adam: This is vandalism! You do not have the right to insult Jimbo. --UAltmann (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's accurate. I feel that he's acting directly against the good of the encyclopedia, supporting prudery, and encouraging the deletion fo encyclopedic contend. All wrapped up in Orwellian doubtlethink about how blanket bans on nudity and sex doesn't mean we're censoring anything.

I support cleaning up non-encyclopedic content. Blanket bans on whole classes, especially with weasel-words like "anything lascivious", will, by necessity, include lots of things that are encyclopedic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unacceptable to move a page that way to make a point. Do it again and you may find yourself blocked until you agree not to do it. We want civil discussion, not grandstanding. ++Lar: t/c 11:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Over categorization

For the nudity and other sexual content images that are kept on Commons we need to establish a sane way to categorize the content that does not unexpectedly bring a reader to the content. Currently, if someone clinks a link to Commons on a sister project in an article about a non sexual topic, they might be brought to a category with sexual content in it. Also, searches done of non sexual topic return images of sexual content. Jimbo links to one of the recent example that I found. If you look through my contributions you will find other examples.

I support the wording of the draft that Jimbo wrote. "In the past we have had a problem with images being placed into inappropriate categories, so that viewers were exposed in unexpected ways to sexual content. Image categorization should be done in such a way that readers are not exposed unexpectedly to content that may be offensive. (Editing note from Jimbo so you have an idea what I'm driving at here... this is an example - this image used to be in Category:People eating)" FloNight♥♥♥ 20:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Another example: There is a lot of erotic/porn images in Category:Second Life. The problem is that this category is included by {{Second Life}}. --Leyo 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Second life template is a sourcing template, and thus should source in a separate hidden sourcing category, as all our sourcing/copyright status categories are hidden. Seems the easiest method here to avoid that problem. TheDJ (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadistic or masochistic abuse

This needs to be better defined. As it stands, it includes the removal of commonplace demonstrations of BDSM activities, such as in Category:Folsom Street Fair, something of which in fact are what we're trying to avoid. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of those files you mentioned do not show explicit sexual conduct and are thus not subject to deletion as per Commons:Sexual content. --UAltmann (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording that is currently at Commons:Sexual content does not require "explicit sexual conduct", but merely depiction of "actual or simulated acts". Black Falcon (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

you're correct, of course, though most images in the cat. given don't feature actual or simulated acts either :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good thought, I re-edited the section a little, I am curious about the reactions. --UAltmann (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between BDSM in general and simulated or actual abuse.... TheDJ (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly true, but I'm not sure I know where the line is. For example, if a BDSM outfit is uncomfortable, is that abuse? How about ropes? Uncomfortably tight ropes? Hanging from tight ropes? Etc. I can think of things that probably are abuse and things that almost certainly aren't, but I don't know where the dividing line is. Dragons flight (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this as well. Clearly the intent of the foundation directive is "think of the children" and as such I think that excessive collections of BDSM are partly deletable under the 2nd part of the proposal: "repetitive of other content accepted for educational value can be deleted." However where the line of 'abuse' is in regard to BDSM is very much unclear to me as well. TheDJ (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Delinker for likely files, I see that - A not particularly graphic image, with fully-clothed participants - was deleted and delinked, despite being in use for educational purposes.

So, this is going exactly as I thought: Encyclopedic content is being destroyed for reasons of prudery, and because of bad advice. For god's sake, when images of fully clothed people which are in use to illustrate articles related to BDSM are getting deleted, something has gone horribly wrong.

Also, I really, really object at being forced to scan through pornography just to find out if this idiotic policy is having the effect anyone with two brain cells could've predicted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

COM:UNDEL and further complaints to be filed with Jimbo. TheDJ (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Question, and I promise this is not rhetorical: does this proposed policy mean losing most of the images in Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse? None of the exceptions spelled out so far would allow these images, and they certainly are examples of sadism, and non-consensual sadism at that, from the sadist's point of view. Perhaps there is simply another exception needed, something related to historical importance or newsworthiness? - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd add 'sexual' to the description; 'Sadistic or masochistic sexual material - or....' - that clarifies why it wouldn't apply to prisoner abuse, no? Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Why a photograph of a masturbating prisoner is not a sexual material? Btw, Abu Ghraib pictures will be deleted in any case, sooner or later, as copyvio, maybe it's a poor example. Trycatch (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The masturbating prisoner is a rather horrific image which would indeed qualify under my proposed criteria. Most of the images in the cat wouldn't - I don't know anything about the copyvio aspect I'm afraid. Privatemusings (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a widely known picture, and it would be a serious loss if it will be removed. Ok, what about this picture? Trycatch (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly say there should be room for reasonable discussion - I suppose 'notability' (as in a cultural / historic context for the image already established outside of this project type of thing) - would be a reasonable basis on which to allow media inclusion despite meeting the criteria for deletion. On that basis, it's likely that later (again rather horrific) image would also be ok - as would things like the 'virgin killer' album cover (I know this isn't on this project, but you take the point :-) - or that famous photo of brooke shields. I'd prefer all media to have the facility for ICRA ratings too, mind... thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it depressing, although unsurprising, that most if not everyone contributing to this portion of the conversation has no idea how BDSM works. Example: "If a BDSM outfit is uncomfortable, is that abuse? How about ropes? Uncomfortably tight ropes? Hanging from tight ropes?". Answer: none of them. It's not abuse when the people in question have willingly consented to take part in those activities. Oh ho ho, I hear you cry, how do we know they consented? We don't. How do we know any subject of any photograph has consented? We don't. There is no difference. Roux (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the statute intends "abuse" in an objective sense such as "the infliction of physical injury or harm" rather than a subjective definition such as "wrongful or improper treatment". What the parties themselves consider to be "abuse" is probably less important than what type of content the law's authors intended to cover. I don't think consent matters, just the type of content being photographed. Dragons flight (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

lordy lordy

I guess policy reform is a bit like my embarrassing early sexual history.... you wait ages and ages, then it's all a bit of a rush ;-) - for what it's worth there are still some blowjob pics, and assorted other sexual images as seen here - when this has all calmed down a bit, I'd like to encourage the development of the technology to support the ICRA rating system - or equivalent. I'd then likely support the addition / undeletion of media featuring explicit content - a la flickr for example. Dunno where this places me in the spectrum of things - probably in the middle? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think more than a few people have the feeling this particular policy change was a bit on the non-consensusal side... FYI: see bugzilla:982. (Thanks to TheDJ for providing the link.) Black Falcon (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Privatemusings. I'd like explicit content to be on Commons and in Wikipedia, but only once a content rating and filtering system is in place. (Let's hope it won't take as long as flagged revisions on en:WP.) --JN466 22:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We no longer need tagging now do we ? I don't see why anyone would invest the time to develop a software function that is used by just a few images. It's not worth the effort. Though if anyone does, I welcome the deploy of such software. TheDJ (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In principle ICRA is wide ranging, covering sex, drugs, bad language, violence, etc. in both images and text. It could certainly find uses, though I don't know if those uses provide enough incentive to drive development of it. Dragons flight (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating the obvious: Larry Sanger, FBI & Wikipedia Review

Let's state the obvious ...

This long overdue Damascus Road conversion has come about due to Dr Larry Sanger's letter to the FBI, since forwarded to other agencies and media internationally, and the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia Review. Let us hope the current flutter of activity is more than just a face saving exercise.

However much such a clean up can be welcomed, it still wont address the dissonance in intentions between those of us who seek to make the Wikipedia an educational resource suitable for young people, and the "No Censorship" cultists seeking to promote whatever their current indulgence is. Nota bene, it has been clearly evidenced that such indulgence can either include, e.g. outrightly pro-pedophiliac agendas or employment by the pornography industry, both seeking to shape public consensus and promote their interests. On one hand, the justification and normalization of sexual exploitation and abuse and, on other hand, the commercialization of sexuality invariably involving the former.

• Given the semblance of a volte face, could Jimmy Wales and the Mediawiki Foundation clarify which intention they intent to purse in the future?

If it is indeed the former, a global encyclopedia suitable for children and educational institutions, there would seem to be more far reaching reforms required such as; age verification, model release verification, child access to hard core pornography and so on.

• Would the Mediawiki Foundation care to mention in their statement what their intentions is and how they are going to go about achieving them?

It also would seem respectful of the Foundation if initiators of this reform were credited.

Thank you. --State the obvious (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. While removoing low-quality non-encyclopedic content is a good thing, the first part of the statement, which pretty much made our sexual content policy into "all sexual content, no matter how mild, is completely banned", was an appallingly HORRIBLE idea. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you can find plenty of other sources and repositories for your masturbation material without forcing it down the throats of children, without due and proper limitations or warnings, under the guise of it being "educational".

It is your choice. You change or the Wikipedia is going to end up being increasingly censored out of all the places it wants to be and portrayed for what it is. --State the obvious (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"you can find plenty of other sources and repositories [etc.]" is rather ad hominem. To suggest that the only reason anyone would include material about human sexuality is as masturbation fodder is, frankly, rather insulting. I would suggest that people refrain from such remarks about other contributors. I'm quite certain it is not Jimbo's or the board's intention with the proposed changes to declare open season on all participants in WMF projects who believe that human sexuality is part of the appropriate scope of an encyclopedia. I believe that I am not out of line as an admin to suggest that such ad hominem attacks are no more appropriate now than they were a couple of days ago, before Jimbo weighed in. - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that "other sources and repositories for your masturbation material" was not an ad hominem attack aimed at the one individual above.

It was an objective critique aimed at the entire cabal pushing their amateur hard core pornographic agenda, and subsidiary self-interest groups such as the pedophiliac, pederastic and commercial pornographic industry working on the Wikipedia projects collectively.

I think people should wake up to the fact that this issue is going to break the Wikipedia unless it is dealt with and removed; and what is left of the Wikipedia's credibility is going to be destroyed. --State the obvious (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit such pages, I don't look at such pages, and I don't think low-quality porn needs stored here. But I also don't think that just because something contains some amount of sexual content it can't be encyclopedic. If you actually read the damn arguments being made, instead of making stuff up about the other side, you might be able to move things forwards, so the porn cruft could get deleted, but material with merit be kept, and I could go back to doing what I want to be doing: Revamping the entire Media of the day project from something that hasn't been touched since Commons' first year, and is woefully inadequate. I will further point out that I have... about a hundred or so featured pictures on commons. You are a new user who's only contributions to commons is to show up here and accuse me and others of masturbating. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The current version is just plain poorly worded

I can't make sense of the following: "[various types of images]...are no longer allowed on Foundation projects. For children stricter rules might apply."

1. What could be stricter than "not allowed"?
2. What does "for children" here mean? Children in the image? Uploads by children? Children viewing the images (I for one can't see how we'd know)? Also, by "children" do we mean under 18 or 21 or what?

If this means anything at all - and, as I indicate in my first question, I'm not sure it does - I suggest substituting "minors" for "children" (a 17-year-old is not a child, but is a minor) and being concrete about the age in question. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume the point is that child porn is not allowed even if it doesn't obviously fall into any of the banned categories. This could be clarified of course. Dragons flight (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very least yes. It also relates to the fact that pornography has a different legal meaning 2256, if the person is a child. TheDJ (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions

Something that hasn't yet been touched upon: in many cases, the way an image is perceived is heavily influenced by the description. One look at File:Leda and the Swan 1510-1515.jpg - an image I hope no one is going to suggest we need to lose - indicates how much of this is context. One could easily give such a picture a lascivious description (and, I suspect, be entirely true to the artist's intent in doing so). Conversely, I suspect that there are some images that are liable to be deleted in the current purge that really only need their description reworded. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a notable piece of art and thus allowed per the suggested, exceptions isn't it ? TheDJ (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's part of why I picked it as an example: it is unlikely to be deleted. But if someone had described it as "young woman after sex with bird, in front of naked kiddies" (and I'm hardly going to the extreme of how it could be described in porn-speak) it would present a rather different tone than it does with the current description. What I'm suggesting is that, conversely, there are probably images that are likely to be deleted in the current purge not because of what the image shows, but because someone with more of that attitude uploaded it and wrote the description. I'm suggesting that people who are trying to clean things up keep their eyes out for images that merely need a more appropriate description, rather than deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

you're right of course, but I don't really think this is a problem - I've had a look to see if I can find such an image, but it remains in the mind's eye as far as I can tell.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines

Whatever we come up with for policy here, we are going to need guidelines giving examples of acceptable and unacceptable content. (Presumably, the acceptable can be illustrated by images on Commons and the unacceptable would only be verbally described or by things like "if this painting were a photo, it would be a problem.") Otherwise, this situation is going to get a lot uglier than it currently is, and some of what has been going back and forth between some contributors is already getting pretty ugly. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo

I think it fair to say that when Jimbo attempts to write policy off-the-cuff by fiat, the result is usually either hugely controversial or just terrible, even though the idea behind it is usually quite good. We've seen this happen on en-wiki many times.

One would wish Jimbo would stop making statements by fiat that are meant to be implemented immediately, and instead state that things need to be done, give his initial thoughts, and ask the community to craft a policy.

I propose that we suspend all deletions related to this for one week, and work out a good policy that doesn't threaten encyclopedic content, while getting rid of the amateur porn cruft. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam, I claim no special expertise in writing the details of policy, and so I welcome your help in crafting the language of the policy to be more precise and to allow for appropriate discrimination between random porn and historically important images, etc. However, this is a cleanup project, and I want the speedy deletions to continue. I hope, in fact, you'll help with them. We can undelete things later if errors are made - but I want us to start from a position that pornography on commons is unacceptable, full stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We should definitely work out a good policy regardless :-) - have you had any thoughts on that, adam? Privatemusings (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so speedy?

Having followed the discussions on this page and at Commons:Village pump, I am of the opinion that the majority of editors who have voiced objections are not opposed to the deletion of "amateur porn cruft", but rather to one or more of the following:

1. The imposition of a new policy by fiat, rather than consensus-building;
2. The specific limits of unacceptable sexual content defined by Jimbo; and/or
3. The deletion of sexual content (and non-sexual content depicting nudity) without discussion and citing a policy which still lacks clearly-defined criteria.

I believe that it will be possible to implement Jimbo's decision quickly and to avoid needless drama and ill will within the community by simply crafting a delayed-action speedy deletion template and category (and perhaps a criterion) for images depicting actual or simulated sexual acts, such as {...}, which are low-quality, unused, redundant to higher-quality images, and/or have little or no educational value. An image is tagged and deleted in, say, 2–7 days if no one contests the reason for deletion; if someone contests the reason for deletion, then the image can be deleted via a DR.

If editors take the time to consider the current and potential value and usefulness of individual images instead of mass-tagging any image that depicts nudity or sex, then I think that this system would remove most of the cruft in a short period of time and with a minimum of drama. Black Falcon (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Exactly my view! This solution would be an extremely effective one in my opinion. I am all for removing cruft, and totally against arbitrary introduction of new policy and silent deletions, even by the founder of WMF. This way will alert people to what is being nuked and give them a chance to protest. Although, I think a regular DR would suffice too. Just add "salacious pornography" (or maybe a more rigourous definitation to avoid arguments) to the list of DR reasons, and if the image is deemed to be so, it will go after the DR closes. If the community judges it aceptable, it will stay. Job's a good 'un, and in concordance with normal process! Inductiveload (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't object to deleteion of bad quality images - of any sort - but I object to things being deleted as out of scope by speedy deletion and to things being imposed on us from on high. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea; I agree there's no call for silent deletion. Has something like proposed deletion been tried before on Commons? –SJ+ 08:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree: The only problem I have with this is the section that requires ALL photographs of sexual activity to ALWAYS be deleted - the controversial section. Everything else is fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Jimbo church of My Moralty is Best' strikes again

did you mean something else?

So much for finding rational and productive consensus. Just delete until the community organizes a revolt, bullocks!

calm down, calm down :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Child-friendly"

Commons:Project scope, which is policy, states that "a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be 'child-friendly' or that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons." I am still trying to understand how this new proposed policy is supposed to square with that. In particular, is there an intent to change that portion of Commons:Project scope? Because quite a few people who have been weighing in have suggested, or even presumed, that only 'child-friendly' content should be on Commons. Is that part of the proposed change in policy or not? - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't read that here. This proposal has two parts - the first is simply a reiteration of existing policy, slightly emphasizing cracking down on low-res / redundant / non-educational images that are also sexual in nature, and encouraging people to make existing images more educational by adding labels and better descriptions. The second, marked as controversial, is a new stricture on media that would trigger USC 2257. Both of these changes might make Commons more 'child-friendly', but they do not address a great deal of material on Commons that most children's librarians would exclude from their reading rooms. –SJ+ 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

you mean you refuse to think of the children, sj? ;-) Is it fair to read from your comments that you personally don't believe commons is, or should be, 'child friendly' - using a reasonable interpretation of that phrase of your choosing... Privatemusings (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We do need a separate reference project for children, with its own content standards. (The most significant would likely not be related to media, but would be different language-level and vocabulary than one finds on Wikipedia!) But Commons must serve both that sort of project and all other media needs across Wikimedia. Like any large public library, it is guaranteed to have material that some parents or teachers would consider unfriendly.

We should explain this frankly to our [re]users and describe what knowledge is available. And we should help reusers who need custom snapshots (for themselves, their children, or their [school]) to share their practices with one another. (In my experience, current categories suffice for this. There are already many groups that create school-friendly snapshots of Wikipedia, a fine place for any school to start.) –SJ+ 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

hear hear. I'll press you for your views on a rating system which would enable commons to serve both child friendly, and less-child friendly projects at a later date - I would point out at this stage though that your approach here mightn't tally exactly with what jimbo described as commons' new policy. I see someone has already re-named it a 'proposal'. Just like a british election, we don't know where we stand! ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

should just note that you clarified your statement a bit after I 'hear hear'd you :-) - what experience leads you to feel that current categories suffice for facilitating schools managing content access appropriately? - this doesn't tally with my experience really, nor the anecdotal issues I've discussed with others. Perhaps it's possible that the status quo prior to jimbo's pronouncements is actually ok? - Is this the view you're tending towards? Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

bah! I need to learn to read! (and multi-task - I'm glued to the UK election special, as I have been througout!) - my apologies for misreading / failing to read what you'd written - you were clearly saying that the current categories suffice for the creation of a snapshot. What do you think about a system which would allow ratings on the 'live' site, so schools could interact with that? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this probably is the crux of the matter in many ways. I dunno what the answer is, but I'll reiterate my support for a system which allows downstream users like schools to easily make commons 'child friendly', my support for a policy which restricts underage editors and administrators from accessing or working with what could reasonably be termed pornography, and a rating system which allows commons to host all the freely licensed, legal content it can! Privatemusings (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Status Quo

I've started work on a deletion log showing the recent activity - of particular interest to me are the links which are now 'blue' once more - this change is far from having been accepted by this community (or more specifically, some administrators) - mellow or not, admin.s here are undoing each others actions. Privatemusings (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Most (all?) of the bluelinks I see in your list at the moment seem to have been undeleted by the same admin who originally deleted them, after being informed that the files in question were in use on other Wikimedia projects (which, under COM:SCOPE as currently written, makes them automatically presumed to be educationally useful). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying, ilmari - if I can work out how to read the logs properly, I'll annotate the list. Bringing the issue of 'in use' images into line with what jimbo described as our new policy is an outstanding problem - discussed above in part.... Privatemusings (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)