Wikipedia talk:Sexual content/Archive 2

New page

I have decided to re-tool this page into an essay about sexual content on Wikipedia in general. Someone who is more interested in this topic matter could probably do a better job of it than me. —harej // be happy 22:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start, and much better than the ranting weirdness there was previously. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, in spades. // roux   23:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think, to avoid doubt, it may be worth noting clearly that this essay was inspired by a proposal for a policy that was rejected by an overwhelming consensus, pretty much a snowball -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's great to see progress without ranting weirdness indeed! hooray! (and I'm more than happy for big huge links to the original proposal, complete with notes about its clear rejection - seems sensible to me....) Privatemusings (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a note of some sort on the page pointing to the rejected proposal, since its been overwritten? Avruch ^T 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Crosslinking

Probably worth linking to commons:Commons:Sexual_content, and to commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Commons:Sexual_content. Heck, maybe even noting at WP:PEREN (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

sexual content and personality rights

I believe that this essay's position is a sensible one "As sexual photographs could depict private individuals, it is necessary to ensure that any depicted individuals have their permission for their likeness to be used on Wikipedia." - but it's not currently en or commons policy - the person has to be identifiable for the personality rights to be applied - so for example, close up of genitals, or an explicit photo containing 'bits only' doesn't currently require permission of the participants... I'll edit this accordingly after allowing time for further comment... Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

oh, and even if the person is identifiable, the image is ok, it just contains a 'personality rights' disclaimer..... I don't think this is the best we can do really, and more anon! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that nobody can be identified by their genitals alone, no, there's no need for this. Identifiability is the key portion of why 'personality rights' exist. Without identifiability, there is no personal right being abrogated. This is yet more instruction creep/bureaucracy that is completely and totally unnecessary. The logical extension of what you are saying is that every single person in a random photo of a crowd needs to provide permission to Wikipedia. This is clearly an untenable position, has been soundly rejected in US law if memory serves, and is just more of your obsession with sexual content on Wikipedia. Go have a cup of tea and stop it please. //roux   14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ah, I've missed you, roux :-) - happy new year! - you know, I think we're actually agreeing here - that the wording as it is currently doesn't reflect wiki policy or practice - I'll fix it up tomorrow, most likely Privatemusings (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Non trumatizing?

"Were this image used in vandalism, it is unlikely that anyone would end up traumatized as a result."

I disagree, :awesome: is extremely traumatizing. It haunts my dreams, and I know I'm not the only one... --ScWizard (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead images

Question raised at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Explicit lead images. -- Avi (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)