User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images. We should keep educational images about sexuality - mere nudity is not pornography - but as with all our projects, editorial quality judgments must be made and will be made - appropriately and in good taste. I am stating here my public support for admins who are prepared to enforce quality standards and get rid of a large quantity of what can only be characterized as "trolling" images of people's personal pornography collections. I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship (including removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue). I think our existing policies here on commons are sufficient to deal with the problem - with the minor exception that many things should just be speedy deleted and argued about later. If you want to be technical about it, please consider this a policy change in that regard. Try to relax. Anything which is deleted can be resorted if there's a good reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RIP consensus. Roux (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia is not a democracy. It is a benevolent dictatorship headed by Jimbo Wales. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanity breaks out. Thank goodness for this. Commons contains vast swathes of garbage; penis pics, yet more masturbation pics, homemade pr0nz, etc, etc. What value does all this add to the projects? Little or nothing. Thanks for stating this clearly and plainly, Jimmy - Alison ^❤ 04:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But most all, commons contains lots and lots of propaganda by the invaders of Iraq. Commons welcomes the pictures of mass murderers, but whines about pictures made by consenting adults. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That dog don't hunt. It's a discredited argument. The existence of bad thing A does not justify the existence of bad thing B. It merely suggests more work to do. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

petitio principii: Why are pictures made by consenting adults engaging in a perfectly natural activity a bad thing? Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not a bad thing. But schools and libraries, as well as many parents, do not want to give the children in their care access to media showing explicit sex or violence, or are indeed forbidden by law to give minors such access. We do not exist in a bubble, for our own gratification. We are trying to provide an educational service to society. --JN466 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, would you like to comment on this user's "contributions" and username? Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think his username is juvenile and unfortunate, and tends to shed a negative light on his contributions. I did not review all of his contributions but at least some of what I looked at seemed fine, some quite talented in fact. (Maybe there's some particular bad stuff in there, as I say, I didn't look at it all.) I think he should change his username to something more dignified, but I'd consider that to be a matter of not very great importance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

100 percent d'accord with Alisons comment. Thank you, Jimbo. --Túrelio (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bravo. This is consistent with the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is about educational content not about being a free web host. JzG (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jimbo. This directive is an excellent first step in restoring Wikimedia's credibility. My hope is that all projects can implement standardized content filtering metatags so all projects can once again be declared safe for use in primary schools. Commons:Sexual Content was two user's attempt to author such guidelines. Could you please review what has been done so far (see Commons:Sexual content/April 2010 for latest draft proposal) and give some advice on how these guidelines can become global policy? - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, given this declaration, and in hopes of heading off some wheel wars, it would be very useful if you could provide more guidance as to examples as to where you consider the line to fall. In the absence of examples, I have to say that your remark above does not give me as an admin much guidance. - Jmabel ! talk 07:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding wheel wars, let me first say that we can proceed in a relaxed and friendly way. There will be some disagreements on some details, and I ask all admins to be extremely conservative about undeleting things that are even remotely borderline. Remember, there is no hurry to undelete things - nothing is permanently lost - and things mistakenly deleted in the cleanup can be undeleted in the fullness of time after a calm discussion.

I would say that images that would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements are the obvious starting point. I know there is some question as to whether the 2257 requirements apply to the Foundation (apparently not), but they may very well apply to the uploader. But that's not really the point. The point of 2257 in our context is that it does provide a reasonably well-understood and objective "line" beyond which we do not go.

I do not mean to imply that if an image doesn't cross the 2257 line, it's ok. A suitably tasteful image of nudity helpful in a medical/instructional context is not the issue. "Homemade pr0nz" as Alison put it, is just stupid and should go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

it's great that we're (finally!) getting some momentum here - good on ya' jimbo (although you weren't in a rush ;-) - @jmabel - I would say starting with photographs and videos which depict genital contact with hands, mouths, and other genitals, and probably masturbation too, would be a sensible set of images to discuss first - they're probably not really ok. Thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

< you can see some images it may be worth discussing here if you're over 18, and ok with explicit content. Privatemusings (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a collection of categories requiring attention by admins aged 18 or over. Note that some of these have many, many subcategories:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:BDSM

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:BDSM_humiliation

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sexual_fetishism

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Spanking

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Zoophilia

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_dildos

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_objects

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Masturbating_with_dildos

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fisting

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_masturbation

Some of these might be kept if we had a tagging system in place. As it is, libraries and schools providing minors with access to Commons have no practical way to filter these images out; this leaves them with the choice of either blocking access to Commons altogether, or running the risk of losing funding, or being found guilty of having broken the law.

Also, I believe Commons is breaking the law in a number of Western countries if it allows minors to administer these images. For reference, see [1]. We may need a separate Commons for adult content. --JN466 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? In the U.S., in Florida, it is not illegal for minors to look at sexually explicit images. It may be illegal for an adult to hand some sexually explicit images to a minor. If you feel it is the latter, obviously not allowing minors to view commons images is the answer. Atomaton (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466, actually there is a very easy way to filter those images out because we do have a category system, the very system you used to find those images! As for your other idea, I think it is a very good one: if someone, somewhere wants to start a commons for adult content, that'd be fine with me. Wikimedia is not a free homepage provider or general hosting company. Saying that not everything belongs here is not to say that it can't live somewhere more appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about tagging media categories that feature explicit violent or sexual content? Then all that our admins would need to do would be to ensure that the files are assigned to one of these categories. Libraries, schools and other organisations providing computer access to minors could use these tags as a basis for their content filters.

I think we also need to address the issue of admins aged 17 or under administering this content. --JN466 10:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding content ratings: bugzilla:982. TheDJ (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am very sad to see that we are now deleting slews of images that are in use by various projects. To say "things can be undeleted" is putting the burden on the projects, on people that might not even speak english. I am truly ashamed TheDJ (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand I am very thankful that we finally have this issue sorted out. Though in my opinion "every image that potentially might require 2257 record keeping" is rediculiously broad, since well, those are ALL images of teasing nudity, bdsm and sex. TheDJ (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And I really appreciate your support here, as I know you don't agree with the specifics of this. I think the important thing is that we work together to refine our notions in a way that is consistent with the overall mission of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. I think there are two possible views of Commons - one is as a radical free speech zone where everything is allowed as long as it is legal. Speaking philosophically about the Internet in general, I don't have a problem with something like that existing somewhere. The other view is that commons has a firmly defined educational mission that has to allow for a certain amount of 'difficult' content, but within bounds and always with a very detailed rationale. And speaking philosophically about Wikimedia and our goals, I think that's the right approach.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If "work together" means announcing your willingness to "change the policies for adminship", it is a fine example of en:Newspeak. Has the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation taken a decision? Had you even discussed consistency of your notions with the overall mission with them? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am in constant communication with both the board and Sue Gardner about this issue, yes. I expect the board to issue a statement within a few days offering a general philosophical support for the serious enforcement of policy on this issue. The Board normally does not get involved with detailed content decisions; I don't expect that to change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing at all is sorted out. All that has happened so far, is that one board member has expressed his opinion on the issue. Please note, this is just a single opinion of a single person. Jimbo is not god here. Lots of other people have already expressed their opinions on this matter and a new proposal about what we should do with content which might be considered pornographic, is currently going on at Commons:Sexual content. If you want to change policy, that is the right place to go. Just because Jimbo offers advice on how he would like to see something handled, doesn't mean that is what we are going to do. Remember, this is a community-driven project, not ruled by a single person. Please don't take Jimbo's opinion on this as the final word in this matter - this might be a starting point for a discussion, but it is certainly not the end of the decision making process! @Jimbo: I disagree with your opinion, but I respect it. But please don't try to interfere with processes and threaten to de-admin people. This is not at all helpful and can not be part of an open discussion and policy making process. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisiPK, I thank you for your remarks, but I don't want to leave any mistaken impression here. This is not merely the advice of one person. I don't intend to deadmin anyone - but I will. The order of operation here is going to be that we first clean up commons, and then we can open a broader discussion about what to undelete if necessary. I just don't want anyone to get the impression that we're going to have an open vote about whether to turn Commons into a porn server. We aren't. It isn't going to happen. This is not a democratic debate, this is policy.

As is well known, I am a very strong supporter of community process and consensus. I'm not the right person to work out every single detail of what should remain. But just as NPOV is non-negotiable, so is "Wikimedia Commons is not a porn server".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give a link to the Commons:Wikimedia Commons is not a porn server policy page where you clarify your edict, and offer us your definition of what is "porn" based on your values and your perspective? Obviously letting every editor remove an image based on their opinion of that is not workable. I can understand why you wish to avoid a debate or an attempt at consensus. Obviously it would take a lot of time, and would not be favorable for what you desire. Do you have authority to circumvent the Board and arbitrarily establish policy that opposes consensus? (Commons:Sexual content) As our esteemed founder (and I mean that genuinely) your opinion influences us heavily. But you certainly recognize the ethically necessity to not abuse that influence. Atomaton (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think existing policy is already clear, although if it needs to be adjusted in some respects, I'm all for doing that. This is not about my values and perspective, of course. It is true that line drawing exercises are always hard - but we do it every day across all the projects - mature, responsible editorial judgment is the hallmark of quality. We are fortunate to some extent in that there is at least one easily understood definition that allows a significant amount of objectivity: the 2257 standard is easy to understand and implement, and gets us a long way towards where we should be. (It is not perfect, of course. But it is a start.) To answer your specific question: no, I do not have the authority to circumvent the board. If the board were to vote that Wikimedia Commons should willingly host hardcore pornography, then that would be that. But that is not the view of the board. (I am not in a position to speak for the board directly, so of course I am just reporting my sense of the mood based on discussions we are having.) Finally, I absolutely do recognize the need to exercise my influence in an ethical way and not to abuse it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First, it seems to be the prevalent legal theory that 2257 is not applicable to Wikipedia, or WMF as it is not a commercial enterprise for the production of pornography, and the images used are for educational purposes as a non-profit. Also, that WMF is not what the law calls a primary or secondary producer of such images. I know that there has yet been any legal challenge on this basis to firmly establish case law to support that (in either direction). However, it would seem to be in the best interests of WMF to firnmly establish that at some point. (That 2257 does not apply to WMF). We should not be trying to limit our use of images to 2257 when it does not apply to us. We do, IMO need our own policies that prevent risk of legal issues regarding sexual content. As far as I can tell we have been working on developing those.

I have no doubt that given the respect that we, and the board has for you that if you present it as a matter of of "Wikimedia is not a porn site" that they would/will back you up completely. But, isn't the issue much broader than that? Isn't the method you have chosen a bit awkward? I think if you had created a new policy page in regards to sexual content, or objectionable content, and given your definition as to what your intentions and viewpoints are about the type of content and said that it was policy because you said so, and that the backing of the board would come later, that it would have been handled a little better. The way it has been done it smacks of an authoritarian wp:own at the highest level. I don't doubt that you have the best interests of WMF and commons in mind. I think all of us here have that shared interest and commonality. But you are the primary influencer of our established policies, and particularly that of communication and consensus. And yet, just after much long discussion about sexual content (in a fairly civilized way) and a consensus that the proposal given was not yet acceptable, you establish a founders policy completely against that consensus. If you are going to teach us to follow policy, discuss and find consensus, then you need to do that too. Atomaton (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean en:WP:NPOV, but it would be nice if you could keep in mind that Commons is a different project; our COM:NPOV actually states the opposite of what en:WP:NPOV does: we don't delete content just because it's biased. As for deleting everything and then restoring a few, it's not as easy as you make it sound. If a file is in use 100 times on 20 different projects, deleting it will automatically delink it from all these articles. But upon undeletion, it will not be automatically added back; there's a huge asymmetry in the amount of work. Not even mentioning the fact that "delete first, ask questions later" is a recipe for disaster. –Tryphon^☂ 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, my point was not about NPOV but about policy. Some things are simply going to be non-negotiable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I understand that we are not turning Commons into a porn server. But please understand that the line between what people consider pornography and what people consider useful for an educational purpose is not very clear. Thus I think it is a _very_ bad idea to encourage people to delete images which they think might be borderline or even beyond the line. This brings the problems mentioned below by Dragons flight with images being removed from projects. Obviously the projects found the images useful, so who are we to decide as a single person that these images are not useful? I really think we need to establish some sort of policy how to decide whether an image is useful or not. Simply deleting anything that is not of high quality and features sexual content is exactly what was overwhelmingly opposed when it was last proposed and what is overwhelmingly opposed when a deletion request on such a file is filed. Unless we work out some guideline to distinguish between "porn" and "educational content", the last thing we should do is issue a "Shoot on sight"-order.

Also I still don't see the immediate urgency of the matter. Commons has been hosting sexual content for years; you will surely not have learned that only today? Why are you showing up here and requesting removal of questionable images outside policy (and then in policy). If our policy is too lax on this issue, propose improvements for it so admins can take action according to it. Right now our policy states, that an image which is in use is in scope. Below you disagree with that. Please don't give commands on how to act which contradict local policy. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisiPK, in regard to urgency: you might have missed FOX News accusations against Commons for distributing Child P0rn; though largely or completely wrong, surely not the PR we need. Though the immediate trigger was likely this Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the general spirit of not making a mess, shouldn't we give at least an initial presumption that images that appear in articles have an educational purpose? I agree that warehousing questionable content is a bad idea when it isn't being used for anything, but I'd like to think we'd stop and have at least a little discussion about images that are being used. I bring this up because someone has already deleted images that appeared in 30+ enwiki articles [2]. Dragons flight (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that those images ought to be among the first to be examined for possible undeletion. However, I think it extremely unlikely that many of them should be undeleted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, seriously ? I'm not sure if I can do that in good conscience. I had been skipping such images mostly so far. TheDJ (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with what you're doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it goes against written policy? See en:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with delete first, sort it out later, is that CommonsDelinker will automatically remove those images from all the articles and other places they are being used once they are deleted. This in turn makes it much more difficult to see how an image might have been used prior to deletion, since all the image links will already have been removed. It also means that restoring any undeleted images to the places they were used would require someone to edit each of the appropriate places to put it back (potentially a daunting task if something is used on many different projects). If there is really a possibility that some of the images might be okay, then doing it this way creates a lot more work for people who might be tasked with considering the legitimacy of the images. Dragons flight (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing these questionable images encourages new images that are within scope (like illustrations) to be found or created. While this may remove a few live images in the short term, in the long term this should help improve the overall quality of the project. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll add my 2c in support of Jimmy's statement at the top of the page. It's about time and I am pleasantly surprised that it has come about. So kudos from me too. cheers, Casliber (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would one want an illustration when a photograph is available that shows the topic better? Would an illustration of exactly the same thing somehow be less prurient? Less Pornographic? (Assuming some editors opinion is that the photo is one of those). Atomaton (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't assume that illustrations will necessarily be better for our educational purposes than photos. However, I do think it is worth acknowledging that people often do think about photos and illustrations differently. For example, legal restrictions on pornography often apply only to depictions of actual persons (or in some cases to images that appear to show real persons). For laws and jurisdictions that distinguish between illustrations and photos, using illustrations could be less complicated. You also avoid questions about the subject's age and whether the image was uploaded with the subject's permission. That said, I do think photos can be more educational for some topics than illustrations are likely to be. Dragons flight (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We should follow an methodical and organized method for solving the broader problem.

Why is there such a focus on sexual content? The broader picture is clearly that there is a variety of content that is objectionable. A content filtering mechanism needs to be developed based on categorization, rather than a sudden broad censorship sweep based on subjective opinions of individual editors or admins. Some prudish editors will be inclined to delete anything that they view as sexually explicit, including nudity (it is already happening). The method being followed here is irresponsible and outside of the established process.

If prospectively objectionable content is really a big problem, then we should discuss it and make a workable mechanism. (see Labeling of prospective objectionable content) For instance, initial photograph submission should go into a pool that only administrators can view and categorize. That can't be that hard to set up. Volunteer administrators who recognize they may be exposed to objectionable content of all kinds (sexual, religious, violent, etc.) -- and who are also legally capable of viewing those -- can follow agreed upon policies for content categorization. Eventually (someday) individual viewers would be able to check box and select types of prospectively objectionable content that they wish to allow, or not allow (on whatever project included the content.) Yes -- this would take time. It always takes time to do things the right way. As they say "God is in the details" or if you prefer "The devil is in the details."

The narrow focus on exclusively sexual content when it is not harmful, and only a personal perspective is just censorship. Images of violence, or Wikipedia article on how to build a nuclear bomb, a pipe bomb, a Molotov cocktail and the like would be things that were potentially harmful. I recognize that there are a lot of useless images of penises and the like brought into Commons, but then there are many images of many things that are of poor quality, tasteless and useless being uploaded too. Again, taking the time to do this correctly and establishing a process and procedure is the proper method.

In my opinion (my apologies) the method that has been followed here shows a real lack of leadership and a lack of respect for everyone else involved in the project, from the Board on down. Policy from the board should flow downward in a planned and organized manner. An edict or directive from the founder outside of the accepted process and hierarchy should be addressed and dealt with by the board. Atomaton (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:982 for a content rating system. TheDJ (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A content rating system sounds great. --JN466 14:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Atomaton. This way of doing is downright insulting to all of us who take this project seriously and try our best to follow policies and build a community consensus. I'd like to know why Jimbo felt appropriate to impose his view of "appropriate content" and his policy change on us without even attempting to discuss, explain or justify it (Commons:Sexual content would have been the ideal place to do this). –Tryphon^☂ 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion over there, then.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Commons, like Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, etc, is supposed to be primarily educational. It is about time that non-educational material is removed. Commons was not intended to be your personal picture gallery nor is it a replacement for flickr. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, your statement isn't Commons policy. Commons isn't supposed to be primarily educational. As per intention of the WMF it is intended to be an image repository which can and should be used also from projects outside the WMF projects. Many websites use images transcluded directly from commons. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Record keeping

The following points in your proposal are mutual exclusive:

• Content which would trigger for the uploader or anyone else the reporting requirements of USC 2257 can be speedy deleted.
• Images of high quality of body parts, particularly if labeled for educational value

Even the latter require such records. I propose inverting those two. Explicitely allowing one type of content and excluding all other. TheDJ (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. you stated 2257 multiple times but in the proposal you say "reporting requirement", which is something totally different than the record keeping requirement. Can you clarify that ? TheDJ (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant "record keeping" requirement. I do not think that you are right though. Images of high quality of body parts do not trigger 2257 record keeping requirements for anyone, as far as I know. I think the key is "actual sexually explicit conduct" (with some confusions and clarifications about 'actual' versus 'simulated') but it's the "sexually explicit conduct" part that makes the difference. A medical photo of a penis does not trigger anything for anyone. Am I wrong?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that depends on whether or not someone would call the pose "lascivioius". 2257 applies to all material of sexually explicit conduct, which includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person", and indeed also any acts of simulated explicit sexual conduct] when the material is published on the internet. TheDJ (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "lascivious" clause genuinely stretches things all that far. Certainly, for our purposes, if a photograph of a human body part is needed for an illustration in an article on some aspect of human anatomy, we would want to select the least "lascivious" one possible, for editorial quality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to use 2257 as a benchmark we might as well say what the requirements of that law are.

To paraphrase 2257 and 2257A, one must keep records on each actual person engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct, which means:

2256: "sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

Of these, the first four clauses appear to be fairly objective, while "lascivious exhibition" would perhaps be more subjective and open to interpretation. Since breasts are not genitals, it would also appear that photos of topless women are not covered by 2257 unless the image also happens to show intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, and/or SM.

There doesn't appear to be any exemption for record keeping on the basis of educational or artistic merit, etc.

2257 contains an escape clause exempting works created prior to Nov. 1, 1990, which could be used as basis for creating an exemption for historical works, if one so chose. Dragons flight (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really in my opinion. The act namely does not have an expiration date or anything. That means that there is no way that "new" historical material can legally form within the United States. Ergo if you create a nude statue today, then you need records, and those records need to be kept eternally, in order for the statue to be legal. Even in 500 years.... This is my personal biggest problem with the act. It defacto destroys art if you loose records..... I do not think therefore that it is moral to apply different rules for works created before 1990, simply because that law did not exist back then. TheDJ (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Jimbo, if Mike could look into that and verify it, that might be a nice point to drag up in a press release, because I really think that is a bad thing for America if indeed it is the case. It deserves attention and then maybe something good can come out of this. TheDJ (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would read 2257(a)(1) as exempting any image (or other visual depiction) created before 1990 even if the image were reused in modern works. I agree that there is no future expiration date, and either way you'd always need either model age records or proof of creation before 1990. Dragons flight (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know the theory is that 2257 does not apply to Wikipedia. I am sure no one is eager for a legal challenge, and we all agree that "Wikimedia commons is not a porn site." But it would not be that hard for lawyers at WMF to talk to other lawyers who talk to DOJ Lawyers and establish that 2257 is (as the law says) applicable to commercial producers of pornography. Yes it does discuss being applicable to "sexually explicit" images, but only in the context of primary and secondary producers of such content for commercial purposes. Of course no one wants an expensive court case just to establish the precedent that it does not apply. But that is not the only alternative. If it ever came to that, there are many people who believe in free speech and the first amendment. It is even likely that 2257 is not constitutional. But that is a different topic.

What we should be doing is putting newly submitted content into a pool not viewable by users, and after categorization and applying some (not yet existing policies) then releasing them for view. Those policies would try to categorize by a variety of objectionable content, and not just sexually explicit content. Making sure that releases with record keeping to identify ages on content that was sexually explicit could be part of that policy. (not because it is required by 2257, but because WE will not tolerate child porn.) Atomaton (talk)

The main reason I'm using 2257 as a starting point is not that it applies to the Wikimedia Foundation (opinions may vary about that, but it really isn't relevant to my rationale). I like it because it is a clear definition that is pretty easy to judge. It's a starting point. Using it as a starting point has the added benefit of removing *all* legal risk to the Foundation, *and* to uploaders here. But that isn't really the point. The point is that it is a clear rule, written by someone else, that we've used and discussed a lot in the past, so people can generally understand it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this point and go further to say that although WMF may be exempt from the law, the underlying idea behind the law (to prevent the sexual exploitation of children) is good, so we want to follow the spirit of the law. For this reason we need to make handling uploads of sexually explicit content and nudity a top priority. So, administrators need to promptly delete the dodgy images (without identifying information about age of the person, or clear indication of consent of private sexual acts) rather than rely on deletion discussions. I trust Commons administrators to use commonsense and understand the difference between amateur porn and art masterpieces. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What about art and historic material

I'm specifically interested in your opinion about the large range van Maele sketches and this old video for instance. The latter movie if made today would require record keeping. TheDJ (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the sketches? I'll take a look at the video now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Martin_Van_Maele_erotic_art, which includes several illustrations of apparent pedophilic acts. TheDJ (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the video, I don't think it would require record keeping at all. It would barely achieve an "R" rating in the movies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the images - I didn't look at all of them but most of them don't even contain nudity. And they are historical drawings, which does strike me as a legitimate factor to consider. I would suggest that we carefully add an item to the list of allowed materials to say something about items of particular historical value - we don't want to introduce that as a blanket loophole, but rather to invite consideration of it as one factor in the decision process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: That's not to say that I think all of them should remain. Looking at them, I think there could be a case-by-case discussion about which ones are the best ones to keep.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Something like this – "If Mom returns? She'll tell you that it's very rude to talk with your mouth full." – really should not be hosted without a filter tag. Likewise this zoophilia drawing, which may well be illegal to view in many jurisdictions. This German government page (it's written in English), e.g., says, "Completely prohibited - even among people of legal age - are the depictions of sexual acts involving children, animals or violence." --JN466 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I see little or not educational value in any of those.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the 2256 criteria for modern works, and especially photos, is IMO a good idea and long overdue. (Well, I am wary of this "lascivious" bit in the law, but with a bit of common sense applied, making that evaluation shouldn't really be a problem for the people at the Commons.) It's been circulated around previously (see e.g. this brief two-year old thread; considered only photos; in the end I never got 'round to actually do something about it).

But for old works, blindly using these criteria may well lead to a mess. I really think we should consider the suggestion User:Dragons flight brought up above: don't apply the criteria to works from before November 1, 1990. (Or maybe pick another date in the 20th century? But which one?) Or does anyone seriously consider deleting the images in Category:Kama Sutra, or in Category:Shunga on these grounds? Where's the difference between those and van Maele's? Or, while we're at it, also consider Édouard-Henri Avril... As to "educational value", that's in the eye and the imagination of the beholder. Taken in isolation, Paul Avrils erotica are maybe not educational, so one might consider deleting them, possibly excepting one or two examples. But what would be wrong about illustrating s:Fanny Hill using the images from Category:Fanny Hill? IMO, nothing at all. The same argument could also be made for van Maele's works.

In short: 2256 is a good starting point, but this will need careful elaboration over on Commons:Sexual content to avoid overshooting. Lupo 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify your "wheel-warring" remark?

User:Stillwaterising has suggested to several of us (on our respective user talk pages) that on the basis of your remark we should request to resign our adminships. As far as I understand, you were not saying that those of us who have held a different position than you in the discussions this issue should be de-sysop'd, just that people should not undo the actions of other admins who agree with your position. Could you please explain this to him? Because this feels to me like something that could get very ugly very fast.

Similarly, I assume that even if a new policy is being set, I would hope that people will be allowed to argue against aspects of that policy and remain admins, as long as they abide by it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly would hope so. Otherwise it would be a crazy precedent. TheDJ (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Jmabel. Stillwaterising, please let's all refrain from "hot" comments that will tend to divide us rather than unite us.

I think we need to understand that in the next few days the Foundation - either the board or the staff (or both!) - are likely to put out a statement which will impact these discussions and push us in the direction of a policy change from the past. That's not really something to fight about; it's happening.

But it is entirely possible for people to respectfully disagree with this policy direction and yet to work constructively with others to look for ways to fulfill our educational mission, trying hard to make sure that we have thoughtful carve-outs for legitimate work that needs to be in Commons, while at the same time making significant progress on getting rid of a lot of the amateur porn nonsense.

What I am cautioning against is undeleting hastily or otherwise wheel-warring. That's just not going to be a good thing, but at least so far, I see no signs of that - and the discussion has been proceeding very thoughtfully. This is a difficult issue, and I do expect tempers to flare from time to time as we move forward. But we're all sane people here to work together on some infrastructure for amazing free educational resources, so I'm confident that we'll all end up on more or less the same page.

No one should be threatened with desysopping for mere dissent! Respectful discussion of boundaries and problems is the way for us to get at the most intelligent solution consistent with the Foundation's values.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need to "clean house". Having admins that disregard guidelines such as COM:PS and COM:NOT and especially arguing for inclusion of sexual images of minors are acting against the interests of WMF and should have their positions reevaluated. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any admins disregarding those guidelines, although I do think that enforcement of them has been somewhat lax, but not to the point that anyone should be asked to give back their adminship! I am unaware of anyone arguing in favor of "inclusion of sexual images of minors" and suspect you're not giving me all the context I need in order to form an opinion for myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Jimbo: thank you for confirming what I presumed was the case. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Let's disregard "comments" and look at actual voting on DR's like Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker and others in the recent past. The record speaks for itself. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Stillwaterising, are you seriously saying that I and others should be de-sysop'd for making remarks in line with the policy as it was written at the time we were voting, rather than anticipating that the policy would be changed? - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
        • More specifically, Commons:Project scope, which is policy, states that "a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be 'child-friendly' or that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons." That, and this new proposed policy at Commons:Sexual content, will somehow need to be reconciled. I suspect, from what I am seeing, that this will be done in part by changing this part of Commons:Project scope. That may be fine, depending on what the changes are, but my remarks at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker are precisely in accord with this extant policy. - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Nothing in that overrides the exercise of sound editorial judgement and the fundamental point that Commons is not just a free image host, it is supposed to support the Foundation's other projects. JzG (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Just so that everyone's informed: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Stillwaterising and [3]. If this still water rises any more, I'll pull the plug. Lupo 07:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

An inspirational film I hope people will watch

Please clear 8 minutes to watch this remarkable short film shot in Peru! :-)

There is a little girl in the video - in a village in Peru so remote that you can't get there except by boat.

"What does 'civilization' mean?" she asks - because she's never been there, never seen it. She lives in a shack in the jungle.

But her school has OLPC's. Go watch what she says about Wikipedia, and see if you don't feel amazing pride and a bit of a tear in your eye.

This is what we're about, this is what we are here for. It's worthwhile. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I respect that. But, to offer a counterpoint (not a refutation), looking at our most popular media, an outside observer might be forgiven for thinking we were about something else. When that girl in the video says, "one kid teaches the other", and "I found out about things I never knew existed", let's make sure it will not be our collection of BDSM images she is talking about. --JN466 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Because the next thing that happens is that the adults talk away their laptops.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comment

If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you would please share your thoughts regarding my question at Commons talk:Sexual content#Delete first, discuss later?. Thank you, Black Falcon (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Kameraad Pjotr abuse of Admin ops in claiming Jimbo is a censorer

This history shows User:Kameraad Pjotr readding in blatant POV attacks by user Adam Cuerden on a policy page that was added without consensus or the backing of the WMF. He then protected the page to keep his version of the page added.

I am asking for his adminship to be terminated as a direct abuse of adminship status and for him to be blocked for directly violating our policies related to consensus and disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

His user page also makes direct attacks upon Commons, the WMF, and Jimbo Wales. This reveals that he has a strong POV that is an affront to consensus and this community as a whole, and that his actions cannot be seen as anything beyond a direct Conflict of Interest when using ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stay cool. KP was a fine admin, he disliked the speed and process of recent changes, and he left. I don't see 'direct attacks' in his writing, simply a straightforward expression of a point of view that a number of other contributors here hold. His page protection was wrong and has been reverted; as Lar says there's no need to make a big deal about this. –SJ+ 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Read what he reinserted - homophobic mockery ("Sadistic or masochistic abuse - This could eaily serve an encyclopedic purpose. Hell, ever seen a gay pride parade?). Is that really acceptable for an admin to do in a policy? And then protect it after? When having a statement on his user page mocking Jimbo et al (I can show you specific parts of the translation, but just look at the characterization of "sheep" at the beginning to get a sense of the tone). This behavior happens too frequently and there needs to be a crack down on it in general. This is just a POV meltdown and it destroys everything. I'm tired of administrators on any project abusing their ops like that. Ops are not a political tool nor should they be used to destroy parts of the project to "win" your side of the argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, he already left Commons; he was one of our most active admins, doing a great job on DR, and now he's gone because of this nonsense. Secondly, how can you conceivably write that he has a strong POV that is an affront to consensus and this community as a whole when clearly, this very page is about forcing a policy on us without any sort of consensus or community discussion at all?! I really cannot believe what this project is turning into. –Tryphon^☂ 21:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

He did not leave commons or he wouldn't have made such nasty attacks to begin with. It is disruptive soap boxing with a clearly conflict of interest and an affront on all of our standards. That is unacceptable for any user to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What "conflict of interest"? Is disagreeing with a user (in thie case, Jimbo Wales, but it shouldn't make a difference) a conflict of interest? –Tryphon^☂ 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Read his talk page. It is a very long attack on Jimbo and the WMF. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are lying. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And you should be blocked for that outrageous personal attack. His talk page clearly makes explicit attacks on Jimbo based on a decision that he disagreed with. Such are unacceptable and your response is unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are still lying. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your second outright personal attack and outright incorrect statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks uglier by the second. --Simonxag (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who figured this would go down in any other fashion but ugly is naive about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia operate. TheDJ (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right but I think if we all try to stay mellow it might help a lot. I don't agree with Kameraad Pjotr's modifying the page that way and then protecting it, (at all) but I'm not going to call for his head. It was blowing off steam and as long as it's not repeated, why not let it slide? ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading Jimbo's comments above it is clear to me that people need to think long and hard on the difference between censorship and sound editorial judgement. Just because we can do something and even arguably may do something, that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, and the fact that we are not banned from doing something certainly doesn't make it a good idea. A lot of clueful people seem to have understood what Jimbo is trying to do, which is basically to correct a certain amount of scope creep. Commons is here to support the encyclopaedias. Content which is not of use in educational projects, and which potentially brings those projects into disrepute by association (see the Sanger articles recently, in which he makes the bones of a fair point among the inflated rhetoric) are not really a good use of the Foundation's resources. Do we really think that people are donating money to WMF so we can host galleries of "teh pr0n" gathered from any site with a compatible license? Is this project really supposed to be a free image aggregator, or are we really looking more for excellent original content? Reasonable people can differ on the edge cases but I strongly suspect that there is fundamental underlying agreement that the purpose of Commons is to support the Foundation's educational mission. JzG (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean this as a reply to me specifically (so I outdented you, feel free to reindent it and this reply) :) ... because I strongly agree with you... we do need to work on bringing Commons back in scope. There are other important issues as well, such as, while honoring the idea that we are not censored, also giving people the tools and techniques to make their own content viewing decisions more effectively... it is not censorship to use categorization and user settable filters to aid people in making their own decisions. We can, and should, do more in this area.++Lar: t/c 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you are right. JzG (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Thekohser_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29

Hi Jimbo Wales, I am not really familiar with the background of the global ban regarding Thekohser and its recent lifting. Could you please comment this? Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some technical questions about how to implement the ban. I'm talking to Pathoschild about it. It's nothing I'm particularly excited about one way or the other. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Flickr

There are a number of images (sexual or not) which are copied from Flickr but not used on any Wikimedia project. What are people's views on what is effectively mirroring of other sites' free content without any use case in Wikimedia projects? Should there be an analogue of w:WP:PROD for unused images copied from other sites, as distinct from original content contributed by the Wikimedia community? JzG (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think my statement before mirrors yours in the previous thread and here. I am rather bothered by people trying to make Wikipedia a mirror without any purpose. I would support the cleanup of non-used images copied over from other sites such as flickr. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi pseudonym, in case you haven't noticed, there are several wikipedias and this isn't one of them. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

[4]

Look, the point's good. I could support it as far as it goes, but please stop insisting it be immediately treated as policy until we at least get working definitions of the last two points. In particular, it strikes me that banning "sadistic or masochistic abuse" means that things you could do in public at a gay pride parade, or show on television before the watershed, are somehow forbidden to show in articles about such subjects now. Please at least refine the definition into something workable before insisting it be put into place as policy. Bad policy = bad decisions. I mean, I Love Lucy has spanking in it.

I support the thrust of this policy, but blanket content bans, without very clear exceptions for encyclopedic merit, are just bad policy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

At least some of the things that may be done in public will not be within the scope of commons. I do agree with you that we need to get a much better definition over time. I think it is instantly obvious to anyone that I Love Lucy is not pornography under any sane definition of pornography, and I doubt if you are suggesting that the language of 2257 would require the producers of sitcoms to submit to record-keeping requirements. So while I agree with you that a better definition can be useful, I am not persuaded that commons admins can't work together respectfully to recognize what is and is not pornographic content.

I am personally doing some deletions today - I'll only be deleting things that people may not do in public. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider Oscar Wilde's Salome, or Richard Strauss's opera based on it. In the shocking conclusion, Salome briefly has simulated sex with the head of John the Baptist, before Herod orders her killed. They're also considered one of the more important works of English literature and opera, respectively. Under a strict, "never" policy, we couldn't host a performance of these, nor could we show historic stills from early performances of the end scenes.

I'm sure there's many other works that have such material. Pre-Hays code films, some of which are likely out of copyright, may have such scenes. The 1920s were a fairly sexualised era, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were photos from the time by notable photographers that came under the strict "always" definitions, but which have strong encyclopedic content.

You get the idea. Obviously, there's a lot of clear cases with no encyclopedic merit which we don't need to host. But, in my opinion, no content policy should have "always" attached to it, unless we really mean always. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried adding a qualification:

"The following categories of sexual content are not permitted on commons, except in cases where the specific content or creator is notable or the images are widely agreed to either be of high artistic, literary, or historical merit, or to be a part of a larger work that fits those requirements:"

If you're happy with that, my concerns are addressed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's brilliantly well done. Thank you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well per COM:PORN and Commons:Sexual content images within Category:Facial cumshot now fail? Bidgee (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I just deleted all of those. I'm about to go out to dinner and will take a break on this stuff for the rest of the evening, but I do encourage admins to continue the work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, You had beat me to those images. Bidgee (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted a few images which fail both COM:PORN and Commons:Sexual content. Jimbo, you may also want to read on what is being said on Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content. Bidgee (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

I checked to see if you might be on irc at the moment, especially since you answered me so quickly. Are you around? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll come on now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing images actually in use is sad…

While I have always considered the “rule” of “potentially educational use” much too broad, the current deletion raid including images which are actually used in English Wikipedia articles, is just a switch to another extreme, IMHO. This list is getting sad. Where is the standard “editorial judgment”? Do we no longer trust Wikipedia editors? (Note that I am not objecting to deleting unused images.)

Even the constantly evolving COM:SEX seems to hint that a century old illustration by Édouard-Henri Avril (with biography on 18 Wikipedias, so let’s assume some notability) should not be completely out of scope here… (While I guess undeletion of this image would lead to an immediate desysopping…) --Mormegil (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You handled it correctly. I took another look and undeleted it as having apparent historical value.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not have a second look first? Is there really a need for such a hurry after having several of these images for years? --Leyo 14:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I had not been doing such deletions, I thought, but apparently I made a mistake. So I undeleted this image, that was in use by 20 wikipedias. I personally object to such deletions until I have seen a more firm foundation statement. I would however care to hear your personal opinion about what kind of material you think now will be allowed in articles on Masturbation....TheDJ (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Images used in any featured article in any major project or a significant number of projects in other languages should be keept. It's kind of painfull to see how any image with sexual connotation (following WASP conservative standards) is suddenly put into question worldwide. It might be a great idea to realize, that there are fundamental differences between the conservative moral mainstream in the US and practicly all European countries (I'm not talking about hardcore pornography).
It is highly necessary to find a set of rules which will respect cultural views and differences outside the US. The French and German projects have been used several times as an example for highly serious and examplary standards by Jimbo.
The current situation is highly unsatisfactory. Even if the language barrierers block the reception of related European reactions, don't get it wrong, this lawnmover rapid action without any transparent rules or community process is seen highly critical by a huge group of highly motivated authors in other language projects.Nemissimo (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The first removal related to :de Wikipedia was btw. a obvious mistake a higher degree of carefullness might be helpfull.Nemissimo (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Franz von Bayros?

Another one to reconsider: File:Franz von Bayros 016.jpg. Doesn't seem to be prohibited by the evolving COM:SEX. See also my comment above. Lupo 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect example of why deletion without thought is not a bright idea. Some stuff is junk - some isn't - not a good example to set. Consider this comment applicable to the next heading too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Herby, it isn't necessary to insult me in order to disagree with me. I deleted this with thought, and I'm going to leave it deleted for now because this one - and the next one - are pornography. Really old pornography? Yes. But they are still pornography. I think it possible - with some justification - for this to have some historic significance - does it? Just being old doesn't make something of historic significance. But our default for pornography should be to delete it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually refrained from insulting you - I said nothing I would not have said to any other admin here. I've said what I feel - the speedy deletion of this kind of stuff is not a bright idea (in my opinion). I've deleted a stack of junk in my time as admin on various projects. I'm sure others will make any cases necessary - there is no point in me saying or doing anything else - I'll leave it at that. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, then. I took "deletion without thought" in the wrong way. I regret mentioning it now. I am sorry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to disagree on this. Evidently it's part of a larger series by an artist who is known best for his erotic drawings. While he's not exactly super-famous, he isn't an unknown either. (Maybe look at the German article.) In my understanding, the educational mission of the Commons encompasses documenting an artist's works as completely as we can.

By modern standards (well, at least by those of the society I live in, apparently not by yours) it's completely harmless. By what standards do you call this drawing "pornography" instead of "erotic art"? (This is a serious question. COM:SEX should probably provide some guidance about this distinction, more than the bare 2256 criteria give, and the article en:Miller test isn't exactly helpful for that either.)

Otherwise, let's at least be consistent and indeed delete the whole category, put him on a "Commons index" such that future uploads of that material can also be deleted, and then go on and clean Category:Shunga.

The same goes for (roughly) for Félicien Rops. Lupo 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I also object to this deletion. If we are going this way, i'm not sure if I can support the foundation..... TheDJ (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just point out the irony of Liam Wyatt working with the museums and recently posting this image on his blog: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25730976@N06/4525101278/in/pool-mw2010 ? TheDJ (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well after the cleanup project is complete, we can have a longer discussion in the fullness of time about such questions. I would like to get specific guidance from the board, for example, on where they want us to draw the line, but that kind of guidance takes some time - it's a longer discussion with a lot of different stakeholders to consider, including readers, especially readers in very conservative jurisdictions, children and schools. I think a perfectly legitimate position for us to take is that we don't have visual depictions of explicit sexual activity here. I think it's a perfectly fine thing to have people collecting classic pornography - on their own servers, separate from Wikimedia completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add here that historical works are not my primary concern, and if I continue doing deletions personally in the next couple of days, I will avoid doing anything with historical-looking images. It's a secondary issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would refrain from performing contestable deletions (I am not talking about clear cases) until the new guidance has been discussed. This includes historic paintings and non-historic drawings/graphics. --Leyo 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Félicien Rops?

Also File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png. Lupo 14:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Art

Jimbo, after agreeing art should be excluded, you've gone and deleted two pieces of art by notable artists. I've restored File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png since Félicien Rops is apparently notable, and if we start saying pornographic illustrations by notable artists aren't notable, we're going to go down a route we really don't want to.

Please take a bit more care: People are looking to you to set the example, and if you're deleting artworks out of ignorance of the artists' importance, then others are going to see fit to do the same.

I'd probably even go so far as to say that most pornographic artworks that aren't user created are probably notable, and shouldn't be deleted unless the artist is checked and this check shows them to be non-notable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also undeleted the image discussed above. Really, Jimbo, that was a horrible precedent to almost set, and I'd strongly encourage more caution, or, better, stepping away from artwork completely. You aren't expected to be an art expert, but if you know you aren't, you shouldn't be deleting engravings by Franz von Bayros of very high artistic merit just because they show sex. This is exactly what you agreed should be exculded from deletion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, hi, as you know, I'm fully supportive of a policy change brought by the Board in order to ease the cleanup process of all the abundance of crap pornography on Commons, but I urge you to caution with the removal of historical, artistic and notable images such as the one that Adam has mentioned here. Thanks. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time to start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop deleting files

Among the files you have deleted are many artworks and files in use on several Wikipedias. Stop your mass deletion and let the community decide each case separately. Many of the files you have deleted clearly deserve to be hosted on Commons. --Petter (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize, if you were anyone else...

If, a week ago, anyone else had made this same pattern of deletions, they would have been an instablocked vandal. And acting similarly to a vandal isn't good, no matter how pure your motives.

Your points are valid, given time the community will probably be swayed in your favor-- but you really do need take the time to actually GET that consensus before implementing it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)