Hi Chris, The definition, in terms of the policy discussion, is detailed here; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Definition
It's worth a look, and I hope it's reasonably clear. You asked why I felt sexual content is more likely to cause harm than other situations, or the Saudi example - I don't think I did say that? What I was trying to say anywhoo is simply that sexual content carries a fairly high risk of causing harm if published without consent. I gather OTRS volunteers confirm that the people who get in touch upset about sexual images of themselves published on commons are often distraught - I'd like us to avoid this, and I don't really feel it's helpful to obfuscate the issue with other matters of potential concern - that's just my thoughts. cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Chris McKenna <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, private musings wrote: > > > You might consider sexual content as material which has a fairly high > risk > > of causing harm if published without consent, I guess. > Why do you think "sexual content" (however that vauge term is defined) > more likely to cause harm if published than any other situation? > What "harm" is done surely depends on a combination of the individual > depicted, their attitude they have to whatever it was they were > doing, the laws of the country that person resides in, the laws of the > country the photograph was taken in, the attitude of the law enforcement > of both places, the attitude of the media in both those places, the > attitude of the general public in both those places. > For example a photograph of a high-profile Saudi Arabian woman wearing a > very conservative one-piece swimsuit has the potential to cause more harm > than a photograph of the genitals of an adult French man with no high > publuc profile while he is having vanilla sex with an adult French woman > with an equally low public profile. > > > > > Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately > taken > > photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to > > upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps > only > > his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not > > require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's > > probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual > > content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because > I > > do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm. > > Why would an image of an unidentifiable man's genitals cause more harm > than an image of an identifable man shoplifiting for example? > > ---- > Chris McKenna > > [email protected] > www.sucs.org/~cmckenna > > > The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, > but with the heart > > Antoine de Saint Exupery > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
