Commons talk:Sexual content

  Commons talk:Sexual content/Archive1

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)

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.
  • We can comply with the law by ignoring it as the irrelevancy that the Wikimedia legal team have declared (several times) that it is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
  • The Wikimedia legal team have declared several times that no images hosted on Wikimedia Commons require 18 U.S.C. § 2251 information. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Please provide links to all previous statements made by Wikimedia's legal team. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:44, 24 April 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;

•  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)

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)

•  Full support for above #Concerns_from_User:Thryduulf. --Foroa (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, obviously, and suggest that Privatemusings be permanently topicbanned from this entire subject. Roux (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. Looks like this needs to be formally shot down again. --Carnildo (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Strongly Oppose. This proposal is a compromise that allows explicit content and is not censorship. If Commons can not be effectively self-policied then the Board of Wikimedia, FBI, or American courts will be forced to step in and take action. Possible actions include removal of all sexual content and/or possibly closing down Commons for good. I urge all parties to actively participate at coming to a consensus solution. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:15, 24 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)
  •  Comment I oppose topic bans or the like, just a formal rejection of this and other similar proposals. Kameraad Pjotr 08:02, 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)

 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)