Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade . Hi, I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under. I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have it. I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we need it... Is it really free Isn't there a other option than a image. We have more than one category with nude male or female images and most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the images with very young people on it. Huib ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
I wouldn't mind a standard that said that identifiable, contemporary nudes (i.e. images with faces showing which aren't decades old) would be deleted if there aren't being used on any Wikimedia project. There is a non-trivial risk of harm if we simply allow unlimited inclusion of photos that under normal circumstance would usually be considered private, and when the photos aren't in actual use I think respect for that risk should usually outweigh the consideration that they might possibly be useful some day. -Robert Rohde On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Huib Laurens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under. I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have it. I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we need it... Is it really free Isn't there a other option than a image. We have more than one category with nude male or female images and most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the images with very young people on it. Huib -- Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
Hi, I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under. I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have it. I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we need it... Is it really free Isn't there a other option than a image. We have more than one category with nude male or female images and most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the images with very young people on it. Huib -- Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SterkeBak ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
Also, it's probably worth pointing out that most of the people here ultimately seem to be urging a re-examination of Flickr-licensed images in general, not so much specifically sexual ones. FMF On 12/10/08, David Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on Commons that aren't being used anywhere. So what if we have male nudes far in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article? The point of commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a repository of free images. For most purposes, people will only need one image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can only be beneficial. If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based on an image's use. FMF On 12/10/08, Ting Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are some points we should consider: At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr. Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal issues. Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images. Ting Waerth wrote: Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade . Hi, I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under. I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have it. I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we need it... Is it really free Isn't there a other option than a image. We have more than one category with nude male or female images and most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the images with very young people on it. Huib ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on Commons that aren't being used anywhere. So what if we have male nudes far in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article? The point of commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a repository of free images. For most purposes, people will only need one image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can only be beneficial. If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based on an image's use. It's also worth considering hypothetical books at Wikibooks or courses at Wikversity that teach the art of nude portraits, for which a large wealth of such images would be needed as examples. A simple search on Amazon for nude photography returns many such books [1]. Just because the nudity-related articles on Wikipedia can't use all of these types of images doesn't mean that they are useless to our projects. Obviously non-free images are a different topic entirely, and if these images are unacceptable for other reasons then they should be handled accordingly. However, deleting an image just because it is not currently used at Wikipedia is awfully short-sighted. [1] http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dapsfield-keywords=nude+photographyx=0y=0 --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Ting Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are some points we should consider: At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr. Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal issues. Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images. In the last year or so Commons got at least two verifiable sources of photos of nudity via Flickr. One is by a known author, other is by some group which gave permissions to OTRS. If I remember well, those two sets make the most (or, at least, a relative majority) of categorized nudity images on Commons. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Oldak Quill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree that we should have different standards for media containing nudity and sexuality. Sexuality is an important educational subject. One of the most important, as another poster pointed out. On Wikipedia alone, one would expect a range of articles on different issues relating to sexuality and nudity which would be illustrated where possible. Commons isn't simply a dumping ground for Wikipedia articles though, and also functions as a free media repository. To treat media differently because it contains nudity or sexuality is to allow our own biases and tastes to influence content. To exclude such media because it offends our tastes is not neutral or unbiased. These are legitimate topics that need to be illustrated and demonstrated as much as any other topic. I don't think what we're discussing is taste. Quite apart from the issue of taste and values is the issue of doing harm to the subject of our content. The potential for harm in a sexually explicit photograph is much higher than that for most any other class of content that comes to mind. With these images the notions of consent and age become very important, and while the COM:PEOPLE guideline on Commons addresses this in very broad way there seems to be room for improvement and tightening in the control of this sort of content across Wikimedia projects. Educational use is certainly to be allowed and encouraged - sexual manuals, artistic manuals, etc. are valid uses of Wikimedia projects and the accompanying images have their place on Commons. But there is no need to have unlimited images of the sort that theoretically could be attached to these projects, when these images present their subjects and our community with an array of problems. In an ideal world, all nude images on Commons would require that the age and consent to publish of the model be verifiable. This would not be the same as barring nude images - indeed, it would explicitly permit the upload of these images to Commons while ensuring that we meet our responsibility to limit the potential for harm to living people. David Moran mentions that we should be sure there is a current problem before working on a solution. This is a valid position, but there are problems with that approach. The Commons project is quite obscure to the wider world, so we simply can't rely on those who can potentially be offended by images of themselves to contact Commons or OTRS. Commons, and the other projects, don't appear to have systematic procedures for requiring that consent and age of models be verifiable. The lack of these procedures means that the extent of any current problem is unknown - we may have explicit images now that were published without the consent of the subject (I suspect its quite likely that we do), or with a subject beneath the age of consent. But because we don't check, and we don't require uploaders to provide such information, we don't know. Nathan Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
Sorry I wrote my last mail in haste and I didn't explained it very good. At first I am not very worried about images on commons, I believe there are already some reexaminations done. I am more worried about images that are in the local projects. Take the example of my home-project zh-wp. We have images that are uploaded in 2003. At that time no one really cared about them. Later User:Shizhao mostly did the examination alone for quite long time. We had really began to notice the image upload and examine every uploaded image since one or two years. If someone labeled the image he uploaded as GFDL before this time, we normally didn't cared about it anymore. When I say reexamine I mean these images. I don't know how about the other projects. But I can imagine that at least in some projects we would have similar situation. I mentioned not-used images not to discriminate these images. But these images are not seen since they are uploaded and as thus are less reexamined since then. Only under this aspect did I mention the not-used images. Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance
There have been a number of discussion on the English Wikipedia lately (sparked, of course, by the Virgin Killer image controversy) on the propriety of various images and the need for retaining them on Wikipedia. This is a problem that has a long history on Wikipedia, and a number of controls are in place - limited ability to post explicit images on new articles, some filtering of newly uploaded images to delete those that are obviously duplicative, exhibitionist, etc. Many comments we've had in the last few days concerned the legality of various images, particularly where consent is not demonstrated or verifiable. I've commented [1] that the legality issue shouldn't be a major concern for English Wikipedia editors, because the Foundation itself ought to have limited liability and the individual uploaders have primary culpability for any illegal images. But I still think that there is a community issue here, and I wonder if someone can fill in the details on how we currently deal with it. How well is the Commons guideline COM:PEOPLE enforced with respect to sexual images? Do the many projects with separate image databases generally have similar guidelines? Does anyone know how well they are enforced? In a discussion this past weekend someone else and I were discussing examples of problem images, where the person in an explicit photograph is of questionable age. I realized after a quick survey on Commons of image origins that many of the explicit images are sourced to a single Flickr account. The license of the images was verified closer to the time of upload, but since then the Flickr account has been deactivated. We have no knowledge of the consent of the photographed models, nor any mechanism for verifying their age, and many if not most of the images are unused on Wikipedia projects (which is true, I suspect, for many sexually explicit photographs in general). The whole category of images [3] was previously put up for deletion [2] but the discussion was closed in favor of individual image reviews, which I understand mostly closed as keep. I don't think the Foundation itself can or should do anything about this issue in most cases, but I think the topic deserves some wider discussion and reconsideration - not necessarily as a response to the IWF debacle, but taking that as an opportunity to get a wider audience. Of note is Jimmy's recommendation to the en.wp community (I assume, since it was posted there) for this sort of reconsideration. [4] Nathan [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Walescurid=9870625diff=256870274oldid=256869214 [2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Peter_Klashorst_Photos [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Peter_Klashorst [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Walescurid=9870625diff=256862858oldid=256836841 -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
