User talk:Privatemusings/Let's talk about sex

come gather round... happy to chat :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Seem like good ideas. Especially that of appropriately tagging explicit content (perhaps not even just sexual content, maybe other potentially disturbing content as well) would have avoided many long, time-consuming disputes (someone has a problem with a sexy image? Just tell them to set their filter). Of course, it would spawn other disputes (tag a naked person on the beach as "explicit content" or not?), but at least the stuff with a high chance of offending could be avoided by those who have a high chance of being offended (without having to throw the baby out with the bathwater by blocking Wikipedia altogether).

I think all that's needed is to prove there's a problem. Examples of lawsuits, for example (have there been any?). Failing that, examples of scandals (like Virgin Killer), schools/institutions blocking Wikipedia for its explicit content, or time- and resource-consuming disputes (like the Lolicon dispute from early 2006) that could have been avoided with this. Seems like there's a constant war between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY on Wikipedia, and the community always loses. I think your suggestions would at least tone down that war. -kotra (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

well thanks for saying that - you may not be aware, but I've certainly found it very hard not to get caught up in a bit of a battleground - your take on the polarity of the situation is pretty accurate, sad to say.

also, in terms of lawsuits, I don't think there have been any - nor has the overhead in terms of volunteer time 'fighting fires' been that bad really - it'd be great to try and improve things generally before anything kicks off - we'll see if it happens :-) The good news is that other folk, more able to engender change are getting going in various ways.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed your nudie gallery!

Thanks for posting it. I particularly applaud the aesthetic choice of surrounding the images with text expressing disapproval of them. It seems that some people don't appreciate such juxtaposition; these people were obviously not raised Catholic. ;)

I jest. I actually tend to agree with you about the issue of model age and permission. I suspect that you would get more traction with it if you don't present it as being an issue with sexy photos, but as a more general issue. I think the focus on sex sends people the message that you're being puritanical, and nobody's more fun to disagree with than a puritan. Does that make sense, at all? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I take my lead from the various british rags which regularly publish 'Shocking pictures stolen from celeb! Outrage! More on pages 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25,' type stories :-) - You may be right about the approach, but my take currently is that people often get attracted to any way in which they can 'slam dunk' end a conversation on the wiki - it's noticeable how different these things run in real life. If you've got 5 spare minutes, I'd appreciate a cursory review of my old proposal to see what you reckon... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)ps. it's been a little while since our paths crossed - hope you're good :-)

I wouldn't take a lead from "British rags". I would strongly suggest couching the matter in legal terms about model age and model consent, rather than in sexual ones, about naughty images. The former path is the high road, and the latter leads to threads such as the one on AN now.

Wikipedians care a lot about whether our content is free and legal. Wikipedians don't care much at all about people's sensitivity to explicit images. Politically, I think you'll be much more successful if you drop the "sexual content" focus.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about 'slam dunking'. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I am well, thanks for asking. I've moved, since we last spoke, from Washington state to Texas, and I'm in grad school again. I hope you've been well, too. :)

I'll have to try and explain the 'slam dunk' thing, maybe over a future skype chat or something - your advice is appreciated in terms of politics, though I'd be interested to hear if you feel my my first tack made a better fist of it? I remain a little cynical about folks' ability to engage on this one (as Lar said on commons - sometimes it's easy to just despair of moving this forward at all......) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the previous effort was really better, because it was still titled "Sexual content". If you present this issue as being about sexual content, then I think you'll hit a lot of static that you could completely avoid by strongly downplaying the sexual content issue, and by strongly pushing the legal issue. More directly, I recommend eschewing the word "sex" when presenting the issue, or if you mention it, mentioning it third on a list of several good reasons to be careful about permissions.

It's simply not about sex, it's about laws. Making it clear that you know that it's not about sex would help. Using more examples of media that might require permission for reasons other than nudity or sexual naughtiness would also help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... well perhaps it is just impossible to discuss sexual content, I dunno - but though the issues of legality are important, and relevant, there are some areas clearly acceptable within the law, eg. images taken in public places without the subject's permission, but perhaps not healthy or desirable for us, as a big huge website, to accept. Mileage varies, and regardless, it's a shame that it's so hard to move many conversations in this area forward without hitting brick walls... Privatemusings (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Consider, if you will, the following. Suppose I decide that there are too many images of people in hats on Wikipedia, and we're not even using most of them for encyclopedic reasons. So, I suggest a guideline regarding "hat content," and people reject it. I bring it up again, pointing out that we don't know that we've got permission from all those hat models to keep their pictures on our servers, and some might be copyvios. This idea is similarly rejected, and then you suggest to me that I might drop the focus on hats, and simply talk about model permissions and copyrights. My reaction: "well perhaps it is just impossible to discuss hat content."

Yes, this is a silly example. What I'm trying to say is this: We're dealing with a changing standard. Since the advent of mass media, in particular the Internet, we (as a species, and in fits and starts with much backsliding) have been gradually getting less and less bothered by sexual content. I personally think it's criminal that we can show someone cutting their parents' throats on network television (at least in the US), but not a woman breast-feeding an infant. That's pathological, in my opinion.

I think that more and more people are of the mind that sexual content doesn't go in a separate category from all other types of content. Wikipedia is near the forefront of Web 2.0, so we should especially expect to see such standards espoused here. Sex isn't special, and a picture of a nude human is a lot like a picture of a nude monkey. I think that treating it as special might be a bad idea.

Despite all of this, I know there are legal issues. The recent kerfluffle over Virgin Killer made that clear enough. I suspect that issue is best dealt with on an image-by-image basis. If you tag specific images with problems that cut straight to the WP:OFFICE, then I think you'll win a lot of support. If you present it as being about protecting anybody's eyes from sex, then Wikipedia will turn against you. This the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thought

Rereading the page, I have another thought, regarding the word "naughty," and its various forms. That's one of those words that sounds rather different to American and British ears. On this side of the pond, it's really a word for small children. Describing sexual content as "naughty" either reminds Americans of Monty Python or Austin Powers, or else just sounds like nursery-school (or possibly sexual role-play). Austin Powers is a particularly relevant example, because he used the word to sound like a funny Brit, using language that Americans find ridiculous.

The idea isn't to seem prudish, or to seem disapproving of sexuality. I think that coming across that way will turn people quickly against you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard to know

In some ways wikipedia has become so central to people's lives that it might effect attitudes and laws. The internet in the 90s has had a similar effect on porn. Now that porn is readily accessible there is little that can be done so little is done. In general wikipedia (and commons) are pretty tame compared to say google images. By wikipedia not making a big deal out of sexual imagery we are in some sense changing standards. We refuse to treat woman's breasts as verboten then it has some effect on changing the standards in society regarding sexual imagery. So you are absolutely right we create a bind for schools. The real question is whether that is a bad or a good thing.

I disagree that we are an "irresponsible host" I think we put a lot of the internet to shame in how careful we are. We are part of Web 2.0 though and have user created content. jbolden1517^Talk 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, jb - there are a couple of aspects of our behaviour which lead me to believe we're irresponsible - I particularly don't like the acceptance of photos taken of women on beaches, without thought as to whether or not their permission / age etc. might be appropriate to take into consideration, and the issue of 'descriptive image tagging' (which might facilitate user choice a bit better) seems important to me. Your summing up is great though - succinct and largely spot on, I reckon... Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on permissions. Right now we take an email with any reasonable claim of ownership. Obviously if someone made a counter claim that no model release existed (or that they were underage) wikimedia would take it down real fast. That seems like a moderate position. If standards on the web tighten we can always tighten. We went through an image tightening 2 years ago. Before that we were like Blogger in terms of standards, if no one objected it stayed up if they did it came down. Web 2.0 and standards for public pictures taken in public places is a general problem but I think we are better than most websites.

As for tags. The problem is what I said. By not tagging we create friction with people who would like to use wikipedia censored. We force them to take all or none. My daughter's school opens it up at age 10, if you could use the censored version they would. By not giving them that option we create social change. It all comes down to how you feel about that friction. jbolden1517^Talk 03:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The odd thing is that creating user maintained tags is something I reckon the wiki process would excel at! - I'm not sure at all that we're actually creating social change, more sort of muddling through with a metric ton of unintended consequences which aren't actually shifting 'society' an inch here or there (this would be very interesting to talk through further just by itself!). Your mention of standards is interesting, because I've recently been taking a look at various 'codes of conduct' and 'end user agreements' used by both sites like Flickr, and also on a governmental level - things like advisory papers on 'best practice' etc. often these are aimed at commercial enterprise, but the cap really fits any large organisation (I reckon we qualify!) - typically they seem to deal with things like offering good advice for parents, keeping appropriate records of media used, and also touching on things like 'age verification' screens a la Google Images and Flickr - it's interesting stuff, and I'm trying to ascertain quite where we fit in - my understanding so far is that we're the wrong side of the line in being a 'responsible host' by many of the standards out there.. but I'm still doing my homework :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) You are absolutely right, our policies put us on the wrong side of the "responsible host" standards. And are content puts us on the vitally important side. And that's the friction that creates social change. I also agree tagging is something we would excel at. In fact basically for wikipedia images looking at the categories associated with the articles that are tagged would probably do the trick, you could almost automated the tagging process. I guess the real question is what is that you want that you think the majority of wikipedians think is a good idea. Forget about the details of proposals, or argumentation for a second. What is the one sentence:

I want X

and 3 sentence

I think X will be good because it achieves A1, A2, A3

? jbolden1517^Talk 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

well put, jb - I'll give this some thought, and answer.. Privatemusings (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletion?

After reading your proposal, I'm interested to know if you would advocate a mass deletion of images if model permission cannot be gotten hold of. Though we have OTRS permission for some images from porn sites, take the beech pic that is used on this page. As you point out, the photographer may well have not even known the women- there's no way that we can verify their age, or get their retrospective permission for the use of the picture. Would you support the image's deletion? There are A LOT of images in a similar state. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

that's basically what I have proposed previously - there are many clear cut cases where it's reasonable to assert that permission is unlikely to have been obtained from the subject, and yeah - I don't think we either need, or want, those pics. Privatemusings (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

oh - be warned though, that this approach has been roundly rejected both here and on commons. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, what about the middle cases? How would you propose we deal with, say, File:Het1.jpg? It's fairly clear that the female was aware the male was taking the picture, but we don't really have any way of knowing whether she consented to the image being uploaded here? Is any consent of that sort required by U.S. law? J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggested asking the uploaders to provide an assertion of model age / release etc. - and would view probably view the integration of OTRS into this as sensible - so we'd take the same precautions with media which in my view it's reasonable to view as having the potential for harm (on the part of the subject) as we do with media which looks professional or commercial. How we integrate the existing media into this, I'm less stressed about, but would personally lean towards deleting everything we couldn't be sure wasn't a) featuring only subjects over the age of 18 and b) was published with their knowledge and permission. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ps. on the US law thing - I've no idea, sorry. Privatemusings (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's interesting. I do see there being an issue with the large amount of material that we already have- apart from when it's obvious that the subject was the uploader, or when people were proactive in asserting that they had the subject's permission to upload, we would end up deleting a very large number of files if we were going to have any consistency/enforcability with regard to these policies. Ok, how about this thought- how do we judge what counts as explicit? You wouldn't get women sunbathing topless where I am, but I know plenty of places in Spain where you would. In Europe, there would be no real offense to young girls (I mean, under eight) wandering around topless, but I gather such a thing would be rather shocking in parts of the US. Here, most people wouldn't mind young women wearing short skirts or low cut tops, but in conservative areas, people would be offended. The obvious example is areas of the middle east, where women (sorry to keep using women as the example) would be expected to be completely covered. The other extreme is made up of tribal groups, where nudity is common. So, would permission be needed for images that may fit into cleavage (breasts)? What about buttock cleavage? You've already expressed opposition to the "sunbathing topless" issue, but what about File:Indígenas da etnia Kapirapé.JPG? Basically, where do we draw the line, and what do we use to judge nudity? J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

< you've sort of hit the nail on the head with your last sentence - and it's actually quite easy to judge nudity, no? - You're entirely right that it's impossible to codify these principles fully, but a reasonable view taken by reasonable people is possible to discuss, and consensus can be found without too much trouble, I'd say. The image you link to seems to me to be at some sort of public event or demonstration, and I personally would tend towards the 'it's therefore fine' argument (what do you think?) - this is a matter of the principle of respect for subjects in my view. Privatemusings (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

it's not all about the sex

I replied to your foundation-l thread to say in part what has already been said above : separate your ideas about respect for models, and legal obligations, from those about sex and nudity. Address the first set of ideas first (I think they are the most universal and the most helpful). Tackle the second set with caution, as I don't think you've suggested any very good new ideas yet for helping different readers have the reading experience they want (which is a much thornier issue).

I added my own idea about categorizing unexpectedly-nsfw pages or images -- there aren't many, and much of this is not being sneaky in writing the link-text that takes browsers to a target page (and not designing pages primarily for shock value), but I know people who don't surf WP at work after one bad experience.

+sj + 08:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NSFW images, an idea that leaps to my mind is to use the new image renaming functionality to prefix all of these images with "NSFW_". Then Special:Prefixindex/File:NSFW_ and commons:Special:Prefixindex/File:NSFW_ will show them all, and Nanny rules can block them all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

gently rattling the old cages

Following a(nother) rather depressing deletion debate, I'm thinking of once again trying to raise some awareness of some of the issues surrounding nudity and sexual content on wikipedia. I'm going to do my research on how best to move this personal essay into 'Wikipedia' space, where I hope others who wish to beaver away on trying to create positive change can also edit, and contribute... this is really just a 'heads up' for anyone who has this page on a watchlist :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)