User:Privatemusings/Let's talk about sex
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Well, let's talk about sexual content hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation at least.
I think there are a number of issues with the way we currently manage sexual content (I really mean 'we' as the communities of Wikipedia, Commons, and the broader WMF family). I scratched my head a bit, and came up with some proposals both here on Wikipedia, and on Commons too. For a variety of reasons, they were deeply unpopular, and were comprehensively rejected. I hope to explain myself a bit more clearly here, and present a few discussion points, as well as my own perspective on where the projects need to go from here.
Issues in a nutshell
[edit]
WMF wikis currently have;
- Open access of all material to all, with no 'image tagging' possible, and no possibility philosophically or systemically for age based differentiation, this causes problems with project utility eg. use in schools, or other contexts which require or desire content to be differentiated
- Insufficient rigour in uploading practices - model ages, releases etc. - we are systemically an irresponsible host.
- A (very) large, and growing repository of media, meaning the issues scale up as the projects do. It'd be good to attend to this.
The tips of some icebergs
[edit]Here's the fun bit! I intend to illustrate some of what I perceive as issues with some examples. Anyone that points out that in order to do this I had to browse through pages and pages of pictures will understand what a difficult task this was. Anyone who suggests that I enjoyed the task will be fucked ;-)
People are still having sex
[edit]This pic was uploaded in May 2007, and typical of many of such images, the contributor made a very small no. of contributions to the project (Commons in this case). This pic. illustrates a few issues in my book;
- Currently, Commons doesn't require any information about model release unless the person's face is visible, however I believe it would be appropriate to at least ask whether or not all participants (in this case, the woman) gave permission for the image to be used on a WMF project.
- In the same vein, it would be a 'good thing' in my book to have some information as to all models ages - presumably the image may be illegal (in Florida?) if the participants are below the age of majority.
- I have no idea about the legality of this image across various jurisdictions, but wouldn't mind further advice as to whether or not it's actually legal for a minor to view this image in, say, Florida (and London, and Sydney for that matter!)
Assume good faith please
[edit]
Assume good faith is often raised as an important part of discussions as to whether or not an image should remain on WMF servers. In the case of the shot on the right we assume the following;
- That the uploader own the rights to the image, and that it's not just grabbed from another naughty site (which would of course be a potential copyright violation)
- That the participant in the shot has also consented to the image's free release
- (per above) that the participant in the shot is of legal age for this material. We don't currently bother to ask, or record model ages - but more on that anon.....
Categories and project culture
[edit]
One of Commons's great strengths is its ability to categorise, and organise media. This brings great utility to the huge repository of images, increasing ease-of-use and general accessibility. In this context, of course, it has the side-effect of accentuating systemic problems. Here are some of the categories it seems to me you might be less likely to find in your local library;
- Category:Cameltoes
- Category:Shaved genitalia (female)
- Category:Cleavage (breasts)
- Category:Ejaculation
- Category:Sexual intercourse in humans
- Category:Photos_of_topless_females_featuring_armpits - my personal favourite! - it's somehow very wiki to cater to the... erm.. specialist! ;-)
Many of the images contained in the categories above are fantastic - and have clear educational usage which sits wonderfully within the Wikimedia Foundation's stated goals, however in my view this is not in tension at all with an independent requirement (or just a desire) to assess our handling of this class of images rigorously. To further illustrate, here are the first bunch of results from the Commons category 'Young women'. Nothing hugely outrageous, but it's not a great look for encouraging young women the world over to engage in Wikimedia projects, I reckon - there's rather a preponderance of porn stars and naked folk ;-)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
|
.jpg)
More on permissions, and not-so-cool-pics
[edit]
Some of the cracks in the policies of Wikipedia, and Commons in my book lead to poor choices in the community self-selecting which images to host. Commons in particular currently hosts many such images of people (mainly women) at the beach, in various states of nudity. I believe that context is important when considering a human's 'rights' over their own image, and I further believe that it's questionable at best to allow all images taken in public to be hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and distributed online.
Now you've seen what's out there... make your own collection :-)
[edit]Much of this material flies under the radar of many wiki-folk - after all, there are much better free collections of images out there (you really can get anything your heart, or any other part of your anatomy, desires over at flickr! - albeit with appropriate tagging, and age verification requests). However don't let that stop you! Why not create a gallery of wonderful images the Wikimedia Foundation is bringing to you - many wiki editors have... This is of course a mildly sarcastic dig at how the lofty aims of spreading free knowledge sometimes have unintended consequences. I'm not suggesting compromising our principles one bit, but I think it might be sensible to tighten some rules a little. Here's some examples of others' collections - including below a 'hot' one from a User:Flamingtorch;
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
.jpg)
Prefer video? Hey - Commons is getting there!
[edit]If you prefer your naughtiness talking and walking, then unfortunately Commons is currently a little behind the eight ball on that one.... but don't worry... it's getting there....
So what would I like to change?
[edit]Nothing major, to be honest, just the following;
- Restrict sexual content to article space on Wikipedia, and restrict it from userspace on Commons.oh the irony! this page would no longer be permissible :-)
- Support the development of 'descriptive image tagging' which would allow users (or network managers at schools, for example) to self select media they regard as appropriate to them.
- Apply rigour in inviting model age, release, and copyright information in regard to sexual content.
I'm probably culpable on some levels for the strange way these ideas have been received thus far - it's been described as a crusade, forum shopping, ranting weirdness, and I've even been accused of misusing the organs of the foundation (my personal favourite :-) Quite why these ideas are difficult to communicate calmly and without raising tension is another interesting question - I'm glad you asked ;-)
Why the proposals were rejected
[edit]- There was a strong conflation with 'censorship', something the communities are generally very sensitive about, and cautious of.
- A lack of supporting evidence for the asserted need. To many, it appears to be a solution without a problem. — Werdna • talk 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- (don't worry, I know there's more ;-)