Explicit images don't need to be used in an "encyclopedic" context (Wikimedia is more than just an encyclopedia). They just have to be _potentially_ useful in any Wikimedia project context (that's the narrow, utilitaristic view on Commons) or in any possible educative context (that's the more broad view on Commons, that views Commons as a project on it's own instead of a auxiliary project). For almost any picture it's possible to construct some example cases where the image could serve a demonstrational purpose even if the quality is low and similar images are available abundantly on Commons. We have lot's of low quality penis self-shoots? Lot's of material to illustrate the "bad examples" section of the Wikibooks guide "How to Present Yourself Favorably in Adult Forum Profiles"!
So we shouldn't think about the question "How can we reduce the amount of material". From the previous e-mails by private musings I got the impression that he is mainly concerned about the fact that there is no way to control the display of explicit images on a personal level. Even if somebody accepts that others want to see the images and if he just wants to have a method to get rid of them for him personally, there is no way to achieve this except for "don't click on Wikimedia links or at least think twice whether it could contain explicit images". And I am with private musings on this. I for myself have no interest to exclude explicit images, but it means improved "freedom" for others if we provide a method to allow excluding explicit content. A template at Commons like "{{explicit content|oral intercourse|penis|breasts}}" stating the explicit contents visible in the image would be an easy starting point. Let the template add some invisible HTML divs, provide some Javascript to evaluate the divs and make it a gadget. Then everybody will be able to exclude the personally unwanted content. If a school wants to exclude explicit images, they switch on the gadget by default. It's at least better than having Wikipedia blocked cause the content cannot be controlled. That way "moral panics" would be impossible cause anything immoral can be controlled. One other thing that as a side effect could reduce the amount of explicit material is to introduce a more professional release procedure. If we'd require proper USC 2257 releases for explicit content, that would improve our legal position and it would automatically lead to less anonymous low quality uploads. That's something I would support. Marcus Buck User:Slomox _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l