Wikipedia talk:Sexual content/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
kick off
I'm hoping that this gentle proposal for use on the english wikipedia might find broad support :-) Please do offer thoughts, give feedback, or give a little +1 if you agree :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)k
Seems reasonable to me... ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Some copyediting, and capitalizing "English." Seems sound enough - I think many places have much stricter rules to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
My god, you just don't ever give up, do you? Why are we rehashing this nonsense again? In what universe does Commons policy dictate enwiki policy? Ugh. → ROUX ₪ 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hasn't the community rejected the need for a policy of this type several times already? What has changed since last time that we need one now? Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- A) this has nothing to do with Commons, per se, it's a policy that would apply to images used here regardless of hosting. B) Not this narrow one, no. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the whole question. What has changed since the last dozen times that sexual content policies (broad and narrow) were discussed that means we need this one now? Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- There isn't universal opposition. There never was. Each time, there was broad support, although not enough for a consensus. Perhaps a very narrowly crafted policy will gain consensus where a broader one did not. We need to do something, because there is a very real problem with some images in this area. We can act ourselves or have our hands forced by the WMF board. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is fundamentally untrue. And if it has nothing to do with commons, why does it say that images on enwiki are subject to commons policy? → ROUX ₪ 14:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Specifically, what is this "very real problem" and please give examples of the (type of) images that are causing the problems? Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- There isn't universal opposition. There never was. Each time, there was broad support, although not enough for a consensus. Perhaps a very narrowly crafted policy will gain consensus where a broader one did not. We need to do something, because there is a very real problem with some images in this area. We can act ourselves or have our hands forced by the WMF board. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the whole question. What has changed since the last dozen times that sexual content policies (broad and narrow) were discussed that means we need this one now? Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- A) this has nothing to do with Commons, per se, it's a policy that would apply to images used here regardless of hosting. B) Not this narrow one, no. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
half time
I'm afraid that a (rather pleasant) distraction has diverted me from computer time since Christmas - and I'll be away until the 17th or so - so my apologies for having dropped this in, and not taken up the reigns quite as actively as I might've. On the other hand, it's nice to see things staying relatively calm, despite obvious disagreement above (/me waves at the usual suspects!).
In my view, the need for this policy is that apparently we have had examples of people uploading sexual content without the consent of some subjects. I'm confident that there is broad agreement that this is a bad thing, and shouldn't be permitted on the english wikipedia - this policy would clarify that position. Obviously if you wish to make the argument that we should allow media to be published without the consent of parties, this is the spot to attempt it.
I'm not entirely sure 'jurisdiction' issues (whose policies count where - meta vs. commons vs. here etc. etc.) are really relevant - and I'm certainly not all that interested in them, though I'll read up interesting discussion, for sure. Cheers all, Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- But we have existing policies for things like this (XfD, BLP, Office actions, etc), and to my these processes have been able to cope on every occasion it has happened. Why do we need a new policy? Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)