Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines

Contributors
Contributing editors to the development of these guidelines have included:

Atomaton, Strait, 678901, Haiduc, Johntex, APatcher

Comments from the following have also supported the development of these guidelines:

216.78.33.86, 68.88.70.39, 211.30.71.59, Ts umbra

Etiquette?
What's the etiquette for editing a guideline page? Should I "be bold" and monkey with the proto-guideline while it is also discussed here or should we get a consensus first here before editing the actual guideline?

In any case, I just replaced picture with photograph in cases where it meant photograph, since picture is a synonym of image which includes line drawings and such. --Strait 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a work in progress. Naturally, I have a little ego attached, but improvements are the goal. I think your change makes sense to me. Atom 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I will likely make some changes to the guideline, but I will simultaneously comment on the changes here. --Strait 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just made about a zillion little edits. Sorry if that's annoying.  Not much has really been changed, but I think the organization is better now. --Strait 23:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A Proposed Guideline (to consider or integrate)
I had a guideline that I suggested as a starting point for this guideline section, but it seems to have been removed. I am re-including it below. These are my thoughts on the subject and are only a suggestion. I am including it for your consideration:


 * No photograph or video is to show an individual performing a sexual activity of any kind. Photographic content pertaining to human sexuality (including depictive photographs) are permissible ONLY if it fits the topic and it clarifies the subject. Video content is forbidden in the area of human sexuality. Artist renderings and photographs for illustration purposes are permissible for topics of human sexuality (but, again, no photographs of individuals performing a sexual activity). Photographs containing images of sexual body regions must be linked if the context is human sexuality. Non-sexual nudity is permissible without regulation (an example could be an article on naturism). However, if the photograph is even remotely sexual, the image is to be considered pertaining to human sexuality and is not a Non-sexual nudity and these guidelines must be followed. Specifically, such a photograph should be linked.


 * Clarification of "Performing a sexual activity of any kind:" If the subject of the photograph/video experienced sexual pleasure (either by him/herself of by another) during the making of the photograph he/she performed a sexual activity and the photograph/video must not be used,


 * Clarification of "Even remotely sexual:" Nude persons within intimate proximity, flaunting or bringing focus to a sexual body structure or photographs containing an erection, sexual undertones, etc. are considered, at least, remotely sexual. Discretion must be used here.


 * Exceptions to consider: Video of human ejaculation (see article "Ejaculation")


 * Current talk: There has been discussion of using photographs to depict areas of human sexuality, specifically human masturbation. This subject is difficult to clarify without proper illustrations. Conforming to the above guideline, 'depictive' photographs can be used. That is, a photograph of an individual (nude) demonstrating the posture. This individual does not perform sexual activity in creating the photograph and the viewers of the photograph are informed by the caption that they are not looking at a sexual action. This type of picture is a picture of an individual showing how one positions him/herself for this topic of human sexuality. This type of photograph is to be considered a sexual photograph and must be linked. These "enactments," as they are referred, are alternatives to artist drawings and are a type of artist rendering, themselves. They can be an accurate representation without the sexual act. They are for the purpose of demonstration and education, and given the circumstances are allowed for this purpose. There should be NO photograph of a sexual act. -- 678901 02:02, 27 September 2006


 * Disagree with most of what you have proposed. Your rules are very strict and could easily cause harm by preventing useful images/videos from being shown.  Much of the problem, perhaps, is in the language you use.  This is a guideline.  It cannot "forbid" things.  It can only suggest.  In any case, I specifically disagree on these points:


 * "Video content is forbidden in the area of human sexuality." I agree that it is usually not necessary   (indeed, few articles have video in the whole of Wikipedia) and could easily offend people.  But an outright ban is silly.  There might be a case in which it is useful.


 * "Photographs containing images of sexual body regions must be linked if the context is human sexuality." I assume that by "linked" you mean "not visible on the page itself".  This is not how Wikipedia works.  If the image is pertinent, it should be shown on the page, not semi-censored.


 * "If the subject of the photograph/video experienced sexual pleasure, [...] the photograph/video must not be used." Wow.  We can't have images of people enjoying themselves?  Besides the fact that this is just really puritan, it is impossible to enforce.  You can't tell whether or not someone is experiencing sexual pleasure by looking at a picture.  They might look happy and be faking it (like most models, sexual and non-sexual) or be stony-faced and having an orgasm.  Do you really want to have arguments on talk pages about this?


 * "the viewers of the photograph are informed by the caption that they are not looking at a sexual action” I do not want to see this sort of double talk on Wikipedia. "This picture shows a woman masturbating.  Well, not really masturbating, but rather just holding her hands as though she were masturbating."  No.  If we choose to illustrate female masturbation, we should illustrate female masturbation, not "female with her hand on her clitoris in a posture which might be used for female masturbation" --Strait 14:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with the proposed guideline above. As someone who as attempted to contribute usefully to WP, including articles related to sexuality, I think that any guideline that values inoffensiveness over being informative to the reader is a bad idea, and frankly does a disservice to Wikipedia in general. Aside from the rules necessarily imposed upon Wikipedia as a result of the laws that it is subject to (obscenity, etc.), I think that the only test for images and other content should be what is most informative given the article at hand. In particular, given the choice between a photo and a drawing, unless the photo is particularly poor and the drawing particularly excellent, the photo should be used -- drawings (particularly anatomical drawings) are often far less helpful than actual photos and are rarely representative of anything but an imaginary, idealized version of human anatomy. But practical concerns aside, I'm against the proposal on fundamental grounds, regardless of various "utility" arguments. (For the record, I agree with most of Strait's arguments, given above.) The final deciding factor for the inclusion or exclusion of any content, should be whether it makes the article more informative. If people are offended by information that is true, correct, and accurate, that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. --Kadin2048 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that every image has to be linked. I, too, don't want to have a page that is nothing but dull type. I just think that these questionable images can be linked-- specifically, photographs pertaining to human sexuality. Just because you don't consider the topic questionable or sensitive doesn't mean that others don't. Linked pictures are still just as accessible as immediate photographs. Everyone still sees that they are there, and this way everyone gets a chance to choose to view them.

Let’s try to work out a compromise. Obviously, I disagree with some of your points, and you disagree with some of mine.

Compromise I propose:


 * Videos can be treated no different than photographs.


 * Linked photographs only for people performing sexual acts (now allowable, but only linked). Now illustrations, depictions, art, and other visuals on sexuality can be immediate.


 * Photographs should be preferred over illustrations.


 * The sexual pleasure criteria are out.


 * The "double talk" doesn't have to be some sort of disclaimer. We can change it to just a caption to the effect of "Man demonstrating posture for _____" or "Woman showing ______ stance." These are for education and someone wanting to know what it looks like will be just as informed. I see that you really don't like this, and it can be changed to something in the image description or something not as apparent if you want. I just want the image to be captioned for what it is. I don't want people to think that they are looking at a picture only to be disappointed to find out that it is not what they think it is.


 * "If images exist already in the article, new images should not be introduced unless they substantially improve the quality of the article"-- Reword this to specify images of the same thing. (Example: Otherwise you could have someone replace a picture of a rodeo clown with a picture of a (more descriptive) bull for "Rodeo". The bull picture should be added in addition to what's already there to improve the article and not replace what is already there.) This does not include linked photographs. An example could be an article on intercourse: Have a drawing/depiction/art visual immediately on the page for people to view, but a link under that for anyone who wants to see the real thing. (This is directly relevant to the discussion on the topic of Masturbation, as it could be with many other topics).


 * All other things are as you have laid out in the guideline.

Atom, I know you won't be completely happy with these terms. I put things in that I am not happy with, but I do this in good faith-- that you might find things you can change, too and to participate in the compromise process. There will be some things you don't like about the compromise, and there will be some things I don't like about it, but this is why it is a compromise. Tell me what you think, and what you would have me change. This is why we are having this discussion-- so a decision can be reached. I encourage others to participate as well. -- 678901 14:17, 27 September 2006

I didn't open up the discussion just so that I could try and force my POV. I'll keep an open mind and work for negotiation and consensus fairly. Any end result we come up with that is a consensus, will probably be compromise for everyone. But, it will allow for us to deal with the endless battles every time a new image is introduced, or an image is changed, or some editor photographs himself doing something for a wikipedia article. Atom 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my first read of your initial suggestion I have to agree with Strait, seem pretty strict and conservative. I think it is fair game to ask for what makes you feel most comfortable. One thing to remember is we aren't trying to make guidelines for censoring, but discussing what guidelines will help us to edit better. Things I suggested before (won't re-iterate all of them) would be when I am editing, I think things like: 1) Is this photograph (or image) directly related to the article topic? (If not, should it be here? Probably not.) 2) Is it patently offensive (that is so subjective -- I would use my judgment as a start). 3) Would most/many/lots of people find it patently offensive (subjective). 4) If it is borderline, or likely borderline offensive, does it still add value, and make the article better quality, or not?

I don't think in terms of whether the person, or persons are getting pleasure, or appear to be experiencing sexual pleasure. I mean, it is about sexuality -- sexuality is often about pleasure and sensation.

Nudity/nakedness shouldn't be a factor. We were all born naked. We are supposed to be that way by design. Again a photograph or video should be more about whether it makes the point of the article, or not.

Clearly, we can not allow anything that meets the legal definition of "obscene" (which many would term, Pornography). This inevitable leads to the Miller test. So if there is eroticism or sexual pleasure involved we need to determine if it violates the Miller test, or not. Again, this is only necessary if it has passed the evaluation of being directly applicable to the article topic, and improving the quality of the article, first.

Although it is a compromise for me, I could be okay with a linkimage for photographs or videos that were sexual acts, or might be likely to imply that.

I'm not sure that I follow the "photographs preferred over illustrations". Personally I prefer photographs, yes. But, I know many people are les likely to be offended by illustrations over photographs. Clearly the image that adds to the article the most should be the choice. Consider the hypothetical with too good images that make the point well. One a photo, and one an illustration. If they are really, more or less, equal in making the point, and the illustration has a lower probability of offending (those really prudish readers), why not use the illustration? At least, that is my thought process. If it is a case where they both make the point well, but it is just better, clearer, more obvious with the photo, that is a different case. In that case the photo improves the quality of the article more. Atom 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not for double-talk either. I believe in 100% honesty 100% openness. There is no distinction (legally) between a picture of a man masturbating, and a picture of a man posed as if he were masturbating. So, go with what gives the better quality of article "Picture of man masturbating". If one would avoid legal problems, great, but my read of the miller test doesn't suggest that it does.

Regarding the "If images exist already in the article, new images should not be introduced unless they substantially improve the quality of the article"-- Reword this to specify images of the same thing. -- That makes sense to me. Let's see if we can find wording that works for lots of people?

I think we should avoid linkimage, and use it as a last alternative, unless there is a large probability that someone would be offended.

Atom 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you like, 678901, why not modify the proposed guideline with the ideas you suggested, in accordance with the compromises that Strait and myself mentioned that you are OK with, and let's see what it looks like. I got the first pass, you can have the second, and after we talk about your version for a day or two, we will let Strait have a pass, and another day or two of reflection and discussion. (Then after that, someone else will jump in and argue with everything we work out...;) Atom 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Vanity" images and what I'm comfortable with: You see vanity photographs as a problem. But if someone can bring something to Wikipedia to enhance the article, I don't see any problem with that. It is still up to the people doing the discussion to decide whether the image stays or goes. I did mine for a purpose-- There was discussion on using real photographs, and I saw an opportunity to express an option. Nothing more. The option is using enactments as illustrations, to get around the issue of using "real" photographs that so many have a problem with. I wanted to bring my idea to the table, and what better way than having a sample. I wouldn't have a problem with my enactment not getting used, its just there to show that there is another option. I do not believe actual sexual acts should be presented on a public web service such as Wikipedia-- too many people will have a problem with it. Many people were pushing for placing images on the "Masturbation" page, so I presented an alternative. I have no problem with nudity, which is what it is. I do have a problem with presenting sexual acts, and I feel that a great majority will agree. Thanks for opening up the guidelines. I've added the changes I've proposed. -- 678901

There is an in depth discussion on this matter on Talk:Anus in relation to the legislation of the state in which Wikipedia is hosted which stipulates that no imagery of a sexual nature or bodyparts may be used unless it is by a scientific or academic institution. Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation yet not currently registered as an academic institution, which makes the majority of this proposal nonsensical and contrary to the legislation currently in place.

As with all contemporary encyclopedias, I support the use of line drawings and illustrations, but do not support the use of imagery as it is not only uneccesary, but in most instances encourages purient behaviour by exhibitionists, such as the gentleman on the Anus article who's bumhole randomly appeared and has been incessantly defended by User:Kinst which appeared without consensus on the page and is the most complained about image on Wikipedia due to it's very poor aesthetic (if not disturbing) appeareance.

Furthermore, I feel it is entirely uneccesary. If a user is truly that curious they may perform a google image search. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a one-stop-anatomy-shop. 211.30.71.59 16:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read the discussion in Talk:Anus, which is one of the reasons we are working on guidelines. Specifically, Wikipedia servers are in the State of Florida. The laws in Florida do NOT say "stipulates that no imagery of a sexual nature or bodyparts may be used unless it is by a scientific or academic institution." In Florida, specifically, The 2006 Florida Statutes, Chapter 847 - Obscenity apply. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits limitation of free speech, including images, except for a number of cases, including "obscenity". The state of Florida is limited in what it can prohibit by that. The above Chapter 847 is their definition of "obscenity". It is written to closely follow the Supreme Court ruling regarding free speech and obscenity, basically their own "Miller Test", also known ans the SLAPS test. Their version of it reads thusly:

"Obscene" means the status of material which:

(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and (c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby is not under any circumstance "obscene."

SLAPS = "Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." is the key phrase here.

(a) and (b) can apply (someone finds it offensive, is involves sexual conduct) but then it has to meet (c) SLAPS.

Many people could argue many things, hence the jobs of lawyers and courts. Most would suggest that Wikipedia, taken as a whole, meets the test of having serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Some would hypothetically argue that the article must meet the SLAPS test itself. I think cleary (IMO) the anus article meets that as well. The purpose of these specific guidelines (other than in trying to offer encyclopedic quality, while meeting existing Wikipedia policy) is to also make sure that a given article meets the SLAPS test.

So, whomever told you that the State of Florida "stipulates that no imagery of a sexual nature or bodyparts may be used unless it is by a scientific or academic institution." is misreading the statute. It says nothing even very similar. Atom 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree with the "open-minded" users that the definition of sexual activity ("an activity from which the person photographed has derived sexual pleasure") is no good. We can't tell who felt what, and it's none of our business. The guideline should leave it to the users to decide what is a sexual activity and what isn't. I'm sure there will be few disagreements about that.

2. The whole "reenactment" business seems ridiculous - no offence meant. I don't see how this could work, be useful and yet constitute a reenactment and not the actual thing. So I'd drop it.

3. I absolutely agree with the "pro-censorship" users that there should be no photos of sexual acts, they tend to be pretty offensive/shocking for most people. Drawings should be used instead, just as in normal sexological handbooks. As a compromise, I would agree to linked images - but only when a photo is much more informative or easily done than a drawing. We have to face the fact that there are things people don't expect from an encyclopedia, and that if you want to read, say, information about the attitudes towards oral sex in ancient cultures, that doesn't mean you want the article to ejaculate in your face - albeit only visually. This can't be excused by the informative value of such images, because it is very low - it's clear that even without a drawing, the text and/or the reader's experience are quite sufficient for him/her to imagine what a blowjob or a pearl necklace looks like. The whole thing tends to turn into an exercise in open-mindedness for open-mindedness' sake, and while I do assume good faith, such discussions often make the impression of someone unconsciously trying to propagate his idea of "open-mindedness" among the dull redneck majority via Wikipedia. --Anonymous44 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

People come to Wikipedia to find knowledge. They don't want to feel as if some puritanical Internet censor has gouged their eyes out with a red-hot poker. Ok that is an unrealistic and extreme point of view. But so is this "that doesn't mean you want the article to ejaculate in your face - albeit only visually". My point being that this type of rhetoric only widens the gap between this side and that side. It is much more productive to spend your efforts building a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.60.219 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists of advantages and disadvantages to each approach
I'm glad to see that we're all level-headed around here. It's a pleasant surprise after many flame wars. :-)

Let me pull some thoughts together in the form of a list or two. Setting aside the issue of whether they appear directly on the page, there are pretty much four approaches to the image issue (three of which are easily extendable to the video issue), all of which are in use somewhere right now:

Advantages

 * Cannot possibly offend anyone.

Disadvantages

 * Article looks boring.
 * Reader has no second type of information to draw from after reading the text.

Advantages

 * Non-photographs are less offensive to some than photographs.
 * Possibly more informative, since unnecessary details are left out and necessary ones are easily brought to the fore. (This is why textbooks in all fields use diagrams instead of photographs.)
 * Relatively easy to produce.
 * Relatively easy for third parties to edit to add/remove details (for instance, the teddy bear in the illustration for missionary position).
 * May be considered more culturally and/or religiously sensitive.
 * May be more acceptable in academic institutions.
 * May be considered more acceptable for viewing by minors.

Disadvantages
(Note: Anatomical images are usually sourced from the same material by which surgical and medical students are trained, due to the fact when dealing with anatomy there are many other aesthetic disturbances surrounding any specific part, diagrams can break down and overlook distractions where as photographs can not.)
 * Possibly less informative than photographs:
 * they can be inaccurate, since the illustrator could be drawing something they have never done or seen
 * They can leave out details in which the reader may be interested.
 * Possibly less credible than photographs. In subjects where the sexual act is considered by many impossible (Cf. autofellatio, autocunnilingus) a photograph is much more likely to convince the reader that the act depicted is, in fact, possible.

Advantages

 * Non-photographs are less offensive to some than photographs.
 * By being established art, they are awarded special excused status by many, and therefore may be considered even less offensive than line drawings.
 * Art history is Human history; recordings of the knowledge and beliefs of previous cultures and their accomplishments. Each piece of art is a serious comment that better validates the seriousness of the given topic than a diagram

Disadvantages

 * Often the subject matter is hard to make out, either because of age (crumbling Greek statues) or abstraction (in more modern art).
 * Often have political or cultural overtones which are completely off-topic.
 * Not available for every topic and cannot readily be made available.
 * Possibly less informative than photographs:
 * they can be inaccurate, since the illustrator could be drawing something they have never done or seen
 * They can leave out details in which the reader may be interested.

Advantages

 * Possibly more informative, since it is the actual thing rather than a representation.
 * Easy to produce.

Disadvantages

 * More offensive to some than either other type of image.
 * Might be hard to know that people aren't posting images of ex-girlfriends without their consent, etc.
 * Difficult for third parties to edit to add/remove details.
 * If edited, they lose credibility.
 * Open to exploitation by vanity exhibitionists.
 * May be less acceptable in academic institutions.
 * May be seen as less culturally/relgiously sensitive.

Advantages

 * Possibly less offensive than a photograph of an actual sexual action.
 * Individuals participating in photographs do not conduct sexual acts. (For legal clarification and to help remove ill feelings.) A photograph of a nude posture is likely to be deemed less obscene than a photograph of a sexual action.
 * More descriptive and informative than artistic renderings (drawings or historical).
 * Can be used for educational purposes solely (They are images not intended to be erotic, and can be presented that way).
 * Have a more educational appearance and presentation.
 * The highlight is shifted from a sexual act to a nude posture, while still demonstrating and presenting the action in a manner that is illustrative. The action is still the focus, and has less distractions.
 * Usually these pictures are created with the intent of showing an action and are not merely chosen because they work with the topic.
 * Capable of matching or surpassing the quality of an "actual" photograph.

Disadvantages

 * More offensive to some than either other type of image.
 * Might be hard to know that people aren't posting images of ex-girlfriends without their consent, etc.
 * Difficult for third parties to edit to add/remove details.
 * If edited, they lose credibility.
 * Open to exploitation by vanity exhibitionists.
 * May be less acceptable in academic institutions.
 * May be seen as less culturally/relgiously sensitive.
 * Pictures are not "real."
 * Many could still find them offensive.
 * They are indistinguishable from normal photographs if not for the caption.
 * Possibly more offensive than artistic renderings.
 * Often Wikipedia frowns on visual aids created specifically for an article.
 * Material may be adequately illustrated with drawings.

Advantages of Linkimaging

 * Linkimaging is a perfectly even compromise. It uses available technology to compromise a heated debate.
 * Maintains clarity and neutrality of the article.
 * Is sensitive to Wikipedia users. It's far less "offensive".
 * Offers users a choice. (no big surprises)
 * Nobody ends up feeling that they were tricked into seeing a sex-related photo. If anyone complains, they have to also admit that it was their choice, and nobody tricked them into seeing sex pics.
 * The constant deleting and reverting of articles would be less.
 * Allows the possibility for more pictures and larger pictures.
 * Keeps the article from being content-crammed.
 * Prevents the article from seeming to be focused on sexual pictures rather than the text.
 * Enables everyone to read the whole article that we took so much time to write and edit before they come to the controversial part.
 * Prevents people from using Wikipedia articles for a "pro-sex" or "sex-positive" or "sex negative" political platform.
 * Creates a professional looking respectable atmosphere for an excellent resource.
 * Can be used for all types of media (like photos, videos, etc.) rather than having a bunch of fragmented polices for each type of media.

Disadvantages of Linkimaging

 * The article is not as sexy.
 * People who are in a hurry have to take time to click on a link to see the picture.
 * The article is not as colorful.
 * People who are new to the Internet might not understand how links within articles work.
 * Images have their own talk pages, which might get ignored. (That might be a good thing in some cases because it will free up space on the article talk page for other issues besides this debate) APatcher 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Samples (Relevant topic of Masturbation)
No Image:

Line Drawing:

Historical Artwork:

Photograph:

Enactment Photograph:

Comments on above list
Please add advantages/disadvantages directly to the list above and discuss here. --Strait 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks good to me. I think they make sense. Can’t think of additions at the moment. Atom 01:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed 'Reader gains nothing.' as it is rather tenuously phrased, I could not come up with an alternative because nothing gained would indicate all our text based articles impart nothing. In the line drawing section I have added 'culturally sensitive', 'religiously sensitive', 'acceptable in academic institutions', 'acceptable for viewing by minors'.  In the photograph section I have added the following disadvantages, 'open to exploitation by vanity exhibitionists' (as was the anus image in the Anus article which started this whole issue, although two editors there defended any reverts mericlessly), 'may result in loss of access to academic institutes who rule it out as unacceptable content', and 'culturally insensitive and potentially offensive to various ethnicities, religious and cultural groups'.  Hope that helps.  211.30.71.59 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my edit comment for my changes to your changes. --Strait 18:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would support a preference for drawings over photographs only if the guideline kept it very plain that a photograph is better when it provides more informative detail. For example, earlier today it was proposed at Talk:Erection that the two photos there be replaced with a drawing on the basis of this proposed guideline. Of course, the hi-res photographs give far more information (presence of mucous membrane on the shaft in an uncircumsized penis, alterations in the texture of the scrotum with arousal, etc.) than even very precise drawings or lengthy descriptions could.

However, in depictions of sexual acts, little is gained with a photograph, and a drawing is often more clear.

I would suggest a wording of the guideline: "The image format that provides the most useful encyclopedic detail is always preferred. When two images give an equal level of useful detail, the format least likely to offend is preferred. In many cases, a drawing is less potentially offensive than a photograph of the same subject."

This keeps the focus on the encyclopedic purpose of the images.

Dan B † Dan D 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. --Strait 22:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An editorial decision based on "The image format that provides the most useful encyclopedic detail is always preferred." works for me. ALso, "When two images give an equal level of useful detail, the format least likely to offend is preferred." seems good.  However "In many cases, a drawing is less potentially offensive than a photograph of the same subject." may be true, but it should be an editorial decision.  The last sentence shouldn' be part of the guideline, I feel.  Atom 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, given that it has the qualifier "in many cases", I think it's always true. I would go so far as to say that it would still be true if you changed it to "in most cases", or perhaps "in most cases when judged by a western audience".  I think that this idea should be included in some fashion. --Strait 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was replying specifically to the previous suggestion of wording. I think that the concept that we should use the least potentially offensive image when given a choice makes sense, and is incorporated already in the guideline. "'Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used.'"  Atom 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your "pros" for line drawings are somewhat exaggerated. While line drawings may in some cases be superior to a photograph, in many cases they are not. In particular, line drawings tend to exaggerate certain features or eliminate context -- which may be helpful in some instances, but unhelpful in others. (Just drawing from personal experience here, a whole lot of looking at those black-and-white line drawings of the female anatomy in middle school never helped me any when it came to figuring out the real thing -- I was expecting something that was laid out like a road atlas, and that's just not reality!) The instances in which a line drawing is really superior to a photograph are slim indeed. In modern anatomy textbooks, line drawings and engravings are usually supplemented with photos, because drawings by themselves are rarely enough. I think the ideal combination is a line drawing in order to show the reader the particular anatomical feature that is being discussed, without distractions, combined with a labeled photo to show it in its real-world context. Without the photo for context, it's quite easy to take a drawing at face value, and end up with a very distorted image of reality. This is particularly the case when dealing with sexual anatomy (because many of your readers may not have the anatomy in question to look at themselves). In short, except in specific circumstances, I think it's a terrible idea to "prefer" drawings over photos. Frankly, I think the opposite would be far more informative. --Kadin2048 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ::* There are advantages to having linkimages so we can give people the choice to see what they want to see. If they don't want to see it, then they don't have to click on the linkimage. If they need to see it, then it is still posssible. APatcher 14:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement
I have made an attempt to test-run this policy to sound out how it'll work and whether anyone will take any heed of it, I highly doubt they will. Recently a editor from the italian wiki threw up a rather disturbing photo which has since become the most complained about photo out of all the articles I edit, it is, however, a vanity addition. So per the policy I have reflected this and put it in motion. I won't start a vote until a few more people voice thier opinions on the policy/guidelines, if any editors here are interested in watching how this developmental policy will run, take a peek at Talk:Anus. 211.30.71.59 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course random people dropping by won't follow these guidelines, but that's not what matters. What matters is that the people who do the most editing will, by and large, follow them.  If not, well, then Wikipedia isn't a good concept, because that's how all of it works.


 * Please do not try to enforce these guidelines until they have been accepted. Right now they are only a working draft. --Strait 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [nods] I'm pursuing it along the lines of vanity publication / original research, although User:Kinst and User:Ec5618 have got themselves all dug in to defend their favorite image.  The discussion on the Commons project has led to quite a disheartened response from the editors there who believe that it's an inappropriate image from the get go.  It's unfortunate the editors aren't mature enough to say, hey, this image is off, it's putting people's noses out of joint, let's nerf it, but instead bite down and make out as though you're a book burning fascist for having a problem with it.  [sigh]  Going nowhere fast with that one. 211.30.71.59 09:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why people on the commons project think it is inappropriate? You make it sounds like the reason is clear and obvious.  What characteristic of the photo makes it so? Is it inappropriate just because people wrinkle their nose at it?  Because it is a human body part, or because it is less liked body part?  Because it is male? Because it is tasteless?  (HOw would you make it *not* tasteless?   I view the editors attempts to stop outright censorship just because the image is unpalatable as mature.  I'm serious in wondering what it is about a body part that makes it, apparently, objectionable or offensive (if that is what you mean by inappropriate).  Atom 09:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I checked out the discussion on the commons site, regarding Image:Ano.jpg and pretty much it is limited to recent discussions. Firstly you (our anon friend) 211.30.71.59, trying to use this Work in Progress as a test case (commented about here -- elsewhere),  one user "Mats Halldin", against the image, one user FOR the image, and myself commenting. So, when you say "The discussion on the Commons project has led to quite a disheartened response from the editors there who believe that it's an inappropriate image from the get go." that would be based on your opinion, and that of Mr. Mats Halldin? Atom 10:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ack, sorry for not explaining myself better. I contacted a few of the editors about the matter.  The prime concern is that people will not follow the policy and / or claim that the image 'adds to the article' or is 'neccesary to the article' merely because it is in their opinion. 211.30.71.59 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please try to limit the discussion here to the guidelines that we are trying to forge, and not the specific issue of one particular image. (Please feel free to bring this image up as an example, but if you just want to argue about it, do it in a more appropriate place.) --Strait 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of reasoning behind "No vanity Images"
Okay, first I admit that my reasoning on this starts as theoretical. I realize that sometimes there could be exceptions. But in general, there will always continue to be numerous people who will get a kick out of having their penis, or some other aspect of themselves in a wikipedia article. We can eliminate many of these by not allowing them from Wikipedia editors.

Now, also this is consistent with the approach we already take with written content. No original research allowed, get the material from a verifiable source. Also, from a journalistic perspective, maintaining independence and neutrality in the article. It isn't our job (as an encyclopedia editor) to put out opinion into the article, but to work to fairly represent it. This follows with the wiped policy that suggests not putting in external links to your own web sites, or web sites that you add substantial content to. The desire is to maintain neutrality and independence. From an images (photograph) or even artwork (you made yourself), another editor can always argue that you are biased when you express that "your contribution" is the best image for representing the article.

Now, what makes this a grey area, is that in other parts of Wikipedia (notably Requested pictures ASK for you to contribute your drawings, or pictures of certain objects and places. In this case, you are independent from the editors who primary interest is that article.  After contribution, you don't really have anything to do with that article, or it’s content.

I'm not sure if I am expressing my thoughts clearly or not. Certainly, if we posted to the above mentioned page, and asked for people to submit images (their own artwork, photos, or historic artwork) for the masturbation article of a male and female masturbating, and got a few hundred responses, and chose an image that fit the article well, that would be okay. In that case, I would want primary contributors to the masturbation article to exclude themselves as a matter of neutrality and to maintain ethical clarity. The end result would essentially, be a photograph (or artwork) from a Wikipedian, but not from one that would be (potentially) arguing that their image was the best choice for the article. Possibly, if a contributor to the article had their image included with the many others, and stepped out of the process (current and future) of participating in deciding which image was best, that might be okay. But, personally, I would not feel that it would be appropriate for me to do that in good conscience.

Atom 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you propose this be enforced? There were many complaints on the Anus article when a vanity poster uploaded his anus to the page without consensus or even discussion of the subject; the image was subsequently defended by User:Kinst and a few of his astro-turfing cronies and subsequently Kinst then fought for the removal of the original consensus approved anus image leaving us only with the most complained about image on Wikipedia.  :P  What method would be employed to stop users such as Kinst astro-turfing vanity images into being main images without consensus being met? 211.30.71.59 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to assume good faith, but can you please stop accusing me of things and calling those you disagree with "cronies"? In any case, I never advocated removing the old image on the anus page; it was removed for copyright problems off of commons. --Kinst 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kinst? You and Ec5618 are the only people who have a problem with the removal of the hairy male anus?  Don't make me start supporting my comments with a crapload of quotes and references, because I'm more than happy to (and adept at) being anal .. pun definitely intended.  :) 211.30.71.59 09:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say I understand. --Kinst 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Differing Perspectives on Vanity Photographs

Many here feel that vanity photographs are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I feel that they can be appropriate. Granted, my view might be seen as biased, but I think they can have a place. Here is my argument:
 * 1) It is still up to consensus to determine whether or not the image is used.
 * 2) It gives people motivation to create a superior visual (so the consensus may choose it). Which, does benefit Wikipedia.
 * 3) Does it really matter whether or not the author of the illustration is an editor if the other editors agree that it is the best illustration for the article?
 * 4) It doesn't have to be about editors attaching 'their' pictures for fun, but about editors contributing to the article in a way other than providing the research.

Okay, I did submit a vanity photograph and am probably not getting much credibility in this area. At first I didn't know the ropes and had to learn the consensus process. My intent as a vanity photographer was not so I could point my friends to a Wikipedia link and say "hey, look what I put up on Wikipedia!," but to provide an example of an alternative to using "real" photographs of sexual acts on a public web service. (see the masturbation discussion page) Which, if you have read any of my previous postings, you know I have a strong opinion of.

I do agree with the part about the photograph having to be on the Wikipedia commons, and images can be moved there by the author/copyright holder if needed. But, what difference does it make who the author of the photograph is? If we restrict our content to non-wikipedians we could potentially take something away from the article. And what about the artist renderings? They are created by Wikipedia users. And there is even a requested pictures page. Guess who gets to provide the pictures? Wikipedia users. The consensus of Wikipedia editors ultimately choose whether the photograph is good or not. So, you have an individual who really wants his/her image used. He/she may try to persuade others that his/her image is good, but if the image is poor quality or does not convey the point, it doesn't make any difference because the editors of the article, collectively, will want their article to be the best possible quality and they don't care about the singular editor getting upset because his/her picture is not used. This is the checks-and-balances system. The decision is ultimately in the hands of the editors. In clothing, isn't a custom tailored coat much more desirable than one that is not designed specifically for you. Shouldn't an article visual be the same way. I can understand using this restriction on information so that a credible source is used, but with photographs, its hard to say that one source is more credible than another. If you have a picture of someone's hand for the wikipedia article "hand," is one more credible than another just because one comes from someone who does not edit wikipedia pages and the other comes from someone who does? Since so much of the visuals already come from 3rd party artists/photographers and individuals, why does it matter who the individuals are?

Even if there is some novelty/vanity attached-- for argument's sake lets say that I really want to provide a photograph. I would want to make it look as professional as possible, convey the point as best I can, and to provide an informative resource because I have to appease the editors if I want my photograph to be used. Otherwise, it is poor quality, it doesn't get used and it doesn't matter. If it make it as best I can and use all the resources at my disposal, the editors, then get a higher-quality photograph that they can choose to use in the article if they wish. Lets say that the editors do, in fact, choose to use my photograph. Can an informative photograph detract from the article just because it is authored by someone who is writing on the subject or any other subject on Wikipedia? It almost seems as though... almost... the editors of the subject would have more qualifications for submitting illustrations, because they know what they need and what they are looking for. --678901 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a clear cut issue. Establishing guidelines helps with some kind of best practices (not only practices). And sometimes, rarely, it is appropriate to go against guidelines/rules/policies. However, the ideal case here would be that people who contribute to a significant degree to an article should remain objective, and continue to give the appearance of objectivity. By referring to your own web site as a citation, or your own image as the best image, one damages that objectivity, or certainly at least the appearance of that objectivity. Again, in the ideal case, the best approach would be that the editor or editors developing an article recognize the need for for an image to make the point of a section (or as the lead image). They could first, look on the commons web site, and propose images that seem to be a good fit. If they, or other editors don't like the available images (probably becuase they do not illustrate the point well, or are not good enough quality) then we would advertise on Wikipedia under [[Wikipedia:Requested pictures] for photos, and evaluate those with the same criteria. In my view, this is an effort at encyclopedic quality.  Although we are not required to maintain absolute neutrality and objectivity, I think to continue to raise the quality of Wikipedia, and it's spin-offs and successors into the future, we should establish guidelines, as we are, and endeavor to reach the level of editorial objectivity necessary to do that.

The secondary issue with this is is preventing a continual chain of people new to Wikipedia photographing themselves and trying to fit it into posterity in some form. Establishing and following guidelines and using those as best practices for using images will help us to rebuff that. If we combine our suggested guidelines of "Existing images shouldn't be replaced without a consensus" with "All images should be from Wikimedia Commons" and "No images created by, or including, Wikipedia editors" we have what I believe could be an effective shield against this, without stepping on anyones toes.

Certainly many of the arguments you suggest are valid. Frankly the picture of my penis for the Prince Albert piercing article would look better than the existing image. But I believe that by us making a compromise as editors and maintaining neutrality we protect the long term interests of Wikipedia best. Also, if we advertise, I am sure that we would get at least a hundred pictures of a Prince Albert that are better than mine, and maintain neutrality and objectivity. Agreeing to put our egos aside is in the best interests of Wikipedia. If there are some editors who feel that their skills are better suited for creating images and artwork of various types, then they should focus on that, and not on being editors for sexuality articles. Atom 14:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly then: "people who contribute to a significant degree to an article should remain objective" and "No images created by, or including, Wikipedia editors"

then the image I submitted would not be a vanity photograph under this definition, because I'm not one of the normal editors of the "Masturbation" page (and do not contribute significantly). The only thing I contributed to it was my enactment photo and talk of using enactment photos. Then by this, we shouldn't use it as an example of a "vanity photograph." I'm not trying to argue that my photograph is not a vanity photograph, because I know it is. At least, as I know the term "vanity photograph." I am saying that the definition needs to be reworked.

Until I read about editors wanting to use photographs of people masturbating on the "Masturbation" article I wasn't even an editor. Do you see my point? I do not contribute a significant degree. And at the time of creating the image, I wasn't an editor. I think you need to change the criteria for an image being a vanity photograph.

A better definition of vanity photograph could be: "A photograph created by an individual with the intent to use it in a Wikipedia article." It is the only way we can consider my photograph a vanity photograph.

Another option would be to create a counter-part of Requested pictures-- Something to the effect of "Pictures to be considered for use." where people can submit whatever they want, and the editors of articles can sift through all the garbage to find something that will work for their need.--678901 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first let me say, to be clear, that I do see your point. Based on the one criteria of an editor remaining objective, you don't fit that category. The other category would be something like "people who create and add unsolicited images for Wikipedia" In articles Penis and masturbation there have beem numerous cases of people taking pictures of themselves and trying to add them to the article. My primary concern is editor objectivity. My secondary concern is in a process that buffers every person who sees Wikipedia for the first time trying to add or replace a Penis image. The policy to "Existing images shouldn't be replaced without a consensus" will help. I think that a policy of using images that have been requested for, or that already exist on the commons site would help also. At least in that way, if dozens of men want to add images of their penis, they can add it to the commons site rather than start yet another revert war on an article. Atom 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to replace your image, being used here as a vanity image example, with one of the others from the masturbation article? Atom 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the "vanity" behind my image is debatable under your criteria, I think that would be a good idea.--678901 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it does apply to the second part of the definition. However, if we use a different image, then it might make you feel more comfortable, and avoid the potential appearance of conflict of interest in the future? Atom 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make a change to the section that address vanity images. Before I do, I want to get broader feedback than just the two of us that have discussed it. What I have in mind is something like:

"Images used should not be created or submitted by active editors of the article in order to maintain neutrality. Images should be chosen by consensus from those available from the Wikepedia Commons site, and by requesting images at Requested pictures.  Images offered from random contributors should be moved to the talk page for consideration with other images, as indicated previously, through a consensus process on a periodic basis."

Atom 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And that new definition helps to clarify things.--678901 11:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else want to comment before I put it in? Alternative wording? Atom 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We should use images that do not show a person's face, or make them easily identifiable
I do not feel comfortable with fragmenting images in this fashion - as if there were some residual shame behind the hiding of the face. Haiduc 02:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In sexology and sexuality articles, it is not likely to be about a person, but about some aspect of sexuality, and the article should focus on that aspect, not on a person. (see Private photos of identifiable models)

These guidelines are a Work In Progress. Thanks for your input. See the link given for the reasoning. Private photos of identifiable models The link is of a proposed policy, and primarily to avoid being sued by people who do not like their photo showing up on Wikipedia.

Secondary to this, is that for whatever reason, when people see a photograph of a person, and can recognize their facial characteristics, they seem to object more than if they see only a portion of the body. The Pearl necklace (sexuality) article was originally a photo showing the face and upper torso of user:publicgirluk. A big debate ensued, the photo disappeared, and the user ended up being banned. Now, there is a photo that a couple recently added, and no controversy whatsoever.

Also, in the masturbation article, it showed a photo of a woman masturbating, her head turned to the side, but features recognizable, and there was a debate again, the photo ended up disappearing.

So, we need to make an editorial decision on photos that best add to an article, but in a way not offensive, or obscene. These suggestions are oriented to try and offer editors guidelines (that others helped develop and support) that they can cite when controversy over an image occurs.

Atom 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:678901, in your proposed guidelines, you said that no photographs or videos should be used that showed an individual performing a sexual activity of any kind, but you made an exception for the video of human ejaculation from the Ejaculation article. I saw that video and was very impressed with it. Are you saying that video would be ok? 216.78.33.86 10:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but mainly because it currently exists on the servers. There is a compromise that is forming in the discussion page and we are probably not going to treat videos any different from photographs. It was my original intent that videos be treated with much more sensitivity (mainly because when you watch a video, you feel more impacted than when you view an image), but others disagree with treating videos as I specified in my original guideline. -- 678901 18:57, 28 September 2006

I think his suggestion at compromise was "If a photograph or video is of a sexual act, and is to be included in an article, it should hide behind a link." Please correct me if I am mistaken. Atom 19:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I was just explaining to 216.78.33.86, what my feelings were on videos in my original outline that I proposed. The compromise still stands, I was just clarifying why I originally listed the ejaculation video as an exception. -- 678901


 * Actually, photos behind links isn't a bad idea. Could we comfortably incorporate this into the policy?  I think all parties involved would agree to such a compromise? 211.30.71.59 09:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there would be a great deal of resistance to that. (read: most people would say "no-way".) Personally, I don't think we should put anything behind a link, but can compromise with what is described as "a sexual act". Atom 09:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. I would say "no-way".  I think that the best way to deal with images being offensive to people is not to hide them as though they were shameful, but rather to try to pick the least offensive image that illustrates the topic well.  If that image is still offensive to the reader, then the reader shouldn't have been at the page in the first place.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to be informative, not to enforce social norms. If the reader does not want to be informed on a topic, they should not visit the page on that topic. --Strait 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of this. When an image illustrates a sexual act, it's most informative for media to show the whole body. It would be very odd, for example, to illustrate the missionary position with a pic that cut the partners off at the neck.


 * If our purpose is to avoid angry responses from models who didn't realize they were going to be featured in a sex article -- well, that is just one more reason to use content that is produced expressly for Wikipedia! Dan B † Dan D  20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on "No images created by, or including, Wikipedia editors (or users)"
I removed "or users" because I think that casts too broad a net. Too many people use Wikipedia to exclude them. Any objection? --Strait 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. All in all it reads better. I'm worried about conflict of interest by editors more than anything else. Atom 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this part of the policy. Its purpose ought to be adequately covered by the existing Wikipedia-wide policy against vanity content.


 * The best Wikipedia media, on all topics, is created by skilled editors to fit Wikipedia's needs. In every other area of the Wikipedia, the big push is towards user-created media and away from 3rd-party images. There are any number of benefits to this--the content can be completely free, it can be tailored to fit Wikipedia and particular articles, it increases WP's prestige as an independent information source rather than just a collection of content from elsewhere, and so on.


 * A very pressing reason would be needed for this one Wikiproject to go against the wider effort to promote original images on Wikipedia. But the only reason we have here is concern over pervs who just want to put their weiners online. But we have an existing policy on these guys: WP:Vanity already exists. Disallowing all user-created content is unnecessary, and it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Dan B † Dan D  19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that content should not come from anyone associated with Wikipedia. I am mostly concerned about Conflict of interest. Editors who are primary contributors to the particular article would be in conflict of interest. I was unaware that there was a WP:Vanity, but it seems to point to Conflict of interest. Ideal would be to pull content from the commons site, and that content to not come from people who aprticipate in building and maintaining the article. Atom 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If ever there was a policy that needed ignoring, this is it. If we applied it to Wikipedia in general, the encyclopedia would be stripped of illustrations. The Commons is great and it's where all free images should go. But the people who produce new material for the Commons are us. I have 1 concrete example:- the image in Mammary intercourse is much criticized and there is a strong consensus for a better one; I hope we eventually get a good enough artist but I doubt if it will be someone with an interest in flower arranging. --Simon Speed (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the rule so honored in the breach that I have rewritten it. I have tried to capture what people seem to actually want to exclude rather than telling editors not to illustrate articles (which they are cheerfully and successfully doing anyway). --Simon Speed (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on "Avoid images that show a person's face, or make them easily identifiable"
I just added some more stuff to this one. Please comment. --Strait 22:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the two pictures are outstanding at making the point. A sexually oriented example would be great, but making the point is more important than the type of images. Atom 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on "Given multiple images available, only the one..."
What was the intent of "(Maybe Tribadism)"? There are two images there and they don't seem to really be much different. --Strait 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

At some point I thought I recalled three seperate images of Tribadism. In the current (and recent) versions, there are two images. The point here is weak, but still does one of the images offer something that the other does not? I will look for a better exampple of many images where one (or few) would do. Atom 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure whether you are agreeing with me. --Strait 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Use only the image that best illustrates the point While there may be several images available on a given topic, three images of the same thing don't usually add to the quality of the article. (Maybe Tribadism.) Exceptions to this would be something like Breast - Size, Shape and Composition. If someone introduces a new image that already is represented, we should move it to the talk page, and discuss which, or how many images are appropriate, and go with consensus."

I had tried (ineffectively) to make the point that in the article Tribadism, the three images (at the time) were redundant, and that only one really needed to be there. Now there are two images, both essentially with the same information. I think we agree, and should find a better example to make the point. Atom 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on "Photographs / Videos "
If videos are considered the same as photographs, and the Guidelines state that artwork is preferred over photographs (which would include videos), that makes no common sense at all. Videos are much more informative than either artwork or photographs. The Netherlands Wikipedia is using the ejaculation video from the Commons for their Ejaculation article, so evidently they think that it is the best illustration. Do we need to separate Videos from Photographs and discuss them separately ? What do you think ? Ts umbra 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to separate the two. Videos are much less common and have many important differences.  For instance, there isn't really an issue of whether or not a video is shown directly or behind a link, since (I believe) they are always behind links.  (If this isn't true, it should be.  Not because of anything having to do with sex, but because it's really hard to read something when there's a video playing right next to it.)  Videos may need guidelines for their thumbnail images, something that is obvious for photos.  Since videos may come with sound, we should discuss whether an extra layer of protection should be added for people who have visual but not aural privacy where they are using Wikipedia.  I'd rather these issues not get all mixed up with the images issues.  Probably, though, it is sufficient to give them their own section in this guideline page rather than spawning another whole page.


 * Comment: Your apparent assumption that videos are always recordings of real people is not true. Videos can be the equivalent of line drawings or "historical artwork" (by which I mean "art which could be in a museum") as well. --Strait 13:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are other considerations as well. In general we want every article to have ONE good visual on the right, called a lead (or lede) image, to capture the essence of the article for visually oriented people.  A video can't provide that functionality.  The editorial decision needs to be made for other images in the article of what best illiutrates the point (of a given section), or gives valuable information.  We should not assume that a video will "always" be more informative than other representations.  For the reasons given earlier in pros and cons, sometimes artwork or line drawing are informative, and has a lower probablility of offending readers than a photograph (or video).  I feel that this point applies equally to videos.  For a given editorial decision, one may have to weigh the added value of information offered by the specific video, against the added probability that it could be offensive.  There can be no set formula, and I think in practice it could go one way one time and another way on a different article, depending on the quality of the media, and the editors evaluating it.  If there is a difference of opinion, it can be resolved with the usual consensus method.  Atom 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on "Multi-media behind a link" - A proposed compromise
Perhaps as a fair compromise between the pro-photo and anti-photo folks we can reach a consensus to incorporate into this policy a willingness to retain multimedia but put it behind a descriptive link? I'm sure most mature people would agree to this proposal and further it retains Wikipedia as SFW and furthermore, safe for schools. 211.30.71.59 09:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are the first/only "anti-photo" person so far. Your suggesparticipation is welcome. I think that most people would not be willing to compromise with all images behind a link. For me, that's just unacceptable. As far as SFW and safe for schools, that's just not a factor. Reducing Wikipedia to the lowest common denominator of offensive, or "safe", would be the end of Wikipedia. I see the genuine desire to make it SFW (and safe for schools), but censoring images to the least culturally, socially and religiously offensive isn't workable. The ideal way to solve that problem (not the ones addressed here) would be by Wikipedia allowing the user preferences to be set to not display images or to automatically linkimage all images in Wikipedia if a checkbox were checked. (right now you can set the default size of an image, but not remove it altogether). Atom 10:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be something worth adressing at a higher level perhaps? If images default to off, then it means we'll see Wiki unbanned from a crapload of public and private networks (commercial and .edu.*'s especially) which would be great.  I'm not anti-photo, by any means; in all honesty I was one of those kids who looked up reproductive photos the second I got an encyclopedia to have a giggle.  But in reality, I can see the uneccesary aspect of such images and further can see the impact on the memetic distribution of Wikipedia and further it's impact on the respectability in the field of academia.  211.30.71.59 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Photo-images (photos, movies) of sexual acts should be included behind a descriptive link. There are several reasons for this:
 * In the US, where our servers are based, it is illegal to show such content to minors. Forcing the users to knowingly click the link shifts some burden of responsibility from us to them.
 * Generally speaking, serious reference works (EB, Encarta) do not use images such as this. They are not generally accepted as belonging in a work such as this.  If we allow images like this, it will harm our credibility.
 * If our credibility suffers in such a way, schools/workplaces/households will be more likely to block Wikipedia. It does us little good to be informative if we go unread.
 * Some users will navigate to sexually related pages without knowing what to expect from the page. They may do this for several reasons, including (a) simply not knowing what the term means, especially if they are young or English is not their native language.  (b) they may just not expect this kind of image from a serious work (see above).  (c) They may have followed a link which went to an unexpected place.

-Johntex\talk 03:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex, thanks for your opinion. In general I am for "sexual acts" being behind a link as a compromise to prevent offending people with more narrow views than my own.
 * I am curious as to why you think that the law in the U.S. (or Florida) prohibits such pictures for minors? The law prohibits "obscene" pictures for minors (and all others).  It is illegal to provide pornography to minors (but not illegal for them to look at pornography).  The material here is not obscene, and not pornography.  An obscene link being added would result in it being removed.
 * Wikipedia has disclaimers, such as Content disclaimer, that cover this.  Our credibility relies on us documenting the real world the way it is, not in prohibiting content that people may not agree with.
 * We aren't concerned about being blocked in schools/workplaces/households. Those people have a right to decide what content they want to view on the web.  We aren't trying to generate revenue or to appeal to the largest political base, or anythiung like that.  It is an encylopedia.
 * It is true that we don't wish to intentionally offend people, and try to avoid that. But, if someone goes to the penis article, they should expect that there might be a penis there.
 * We don't censor at all. We certainly don't censor to reach the lowest common denominator.  We aren't trying or attempting to make wikipedia "child safe".  It is an encylopedia about the real world and the real things that are found there.

Atom 13:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Atom, thanks for your reply.
 * I don't know how you can say "The material here is not obscene, and not pornography" without knowing ahead of time what images people will be uploading. We have hundreds of articles on porn stars, porn movies, porn movie companies.  We allow screenshots that deal with TV shows like the Simpsons.  Someday, some enterprising editor will be uploading "fair use" screen shots of porn movies.  Or, some porn producer will release some stills under GFDL to illustrate their aritles.


 * Of course I can't predict what photographs people may use. An image of someone in a sex act is not atomatically "obscene".  Already Wikipedia does not allow images that violate the law (are "obscene").  Just because an image may be from a porn movie does not automatically make it obscene.  Sexuality images can be obscene, but are not automatically obscene just because they are about sexuality.  Atom 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As you say, the law prohibits providing pornography to minors. We know we have minors reading the encyclopedia.  We know we have minors editting the encyclopedia.  Some editors are very open about their age.  What if one of those editors is editting Meatholes after the producer has uploaded some screenshots to the article?  We would be aware that pornographic content was featured, we would be aware that we have provided it to a minor.


 * There are an infinity of possibilities. As is currently the case, an obscene image will be reverted.  We are an encyclopedia though, and not a commercial film.  Appropriate photographs in the context of encyclopedic or educational material isn't obscene even if it were graphic.  If we agree that we don't allow obscene material, then we need to focus on standards for what is least likely to offend people and yet communicate the message desired in the particular encyclopedic article.  Atom 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As for documenting "the real world" - that has limits. We have policies like WP:BLP that prohibit us from documenting things that are verifiably true, but harmful.  We have limits on types of articles that can be included (no how-to, no cookbooks...)  We quite simply do not give people every type of information that they may possibily be lookign for.
 * I agree with that. My perspective is that there is effectively nothing related to sexuality that could be "harmful" in that context.  I am sure that some people would disagree with me.  Atom 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be incredibly conceredn about being blocked, but it should absolutely be a factor in our thinking. We are setting out not just to build an encyclopedia, but to be useful. If we can be 98 points useful to 100 people, that is better than being 99 points useful to 10 people.  Let's be the encyclopedia that is most useful to the most people.
 * Just as people have become accustomed to cable TV being more "real world" including language and sexuality more in that direction, people will become accustomed to an encyclopedia that is real, and not censored. We will inevitably limit our audience somewhat as some people are of the opinion that the government should "shield" us from the real world.  Atom 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As for people coming to penis, I cover that above. There will always be a time before you know the meaning of the word "penis".  Maybe you are young, maybe English is not your first languge.  It doesn't make sense to assume that someone coming to an article understands what the term means.  Likewise, they may have followed a link and not even known the name of the article they are coming to, let alone what it means.  Who would know what Meatholes means before they visit?  In a list of Famous people from Austin, Texas, how could we expect someone to know Nicole Sheridan is an adult film star and that her article contains a fair use screenshot of double penetration from one of her movies?
 * Well, I guess when people look for the real world, they will find it. Because I am concerned about the potential for offending some people I agree that "sex acts" behind a link might be a good compromise.  If someone unfamiliar with the word penis types it in, they will learn what it actually is.  In a natural, normal, encyclopedic context, rather than a lurid or obscene sense.  Atom 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As to censorship - the word is used in confusing ways to advance agendas of showing shocking material. The primary meaning of censorship refers to action by the government or a central authority.  What we primarily mean by saying "Wikipedia is not censored" is that we do not have a central authority that reviews every post before it goes live.  Therefore, at any given moment, pornographic images / vulgar language / libel / etc could appear on any article, be it Fleshlight or Flashlight.  If we decide to prohibit a certain type of image or to treat it in a certain way, that is not censorship because we are deciding to do it.  It is not being imposed upon us by the government.  We make these types of decisions all the time.  Similar decisions include everything from reformatting a date to fit our guidelines to disallowing a blog statement to be used as a source, to resizing an image or choosing which image of the Golden Gate Bridge best adds to the article.  These are all editorial decisions.  There is no reason or justification to apply the word censorship just because the subject is related to sexual content.
 * I agree that editorial decision making on what is best for the quality of an article is not censorship. A decision to not have sexual photos would be censorship. (whether a government were involved or not)  Wikipedia uses censorship in more than one context.  ONe is, as you say, in a context of warning or disclaimer.  But, it is also used in the context that Wikipedia (all of us contributing -- not the management) have a policy to not censor.  Every photo should be taken on a case by case basis.  If a photo is removed because an editor thinks it is a sex act, and all sex acts should be prohibited, that is censorship.  If the editor removes it because there is a better photo, or the photo is general, and not specific to the topic, that is an edit. Atom 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing - I respect the way you discuss this and I know you would not deliberately use a phrase in a harmful way, but I do take some issue with you saying "people who have views more narrow than my own". That depends on one's point of view.  Some of these people may be motivated by idealogical reasons.  To them, their idealology is probably very broad and encompassing.  To others, they may have great respect for pornography and support the legal right for adults to obtain it, but they may just be of the belief that all things have their place and that an encyclopedia is not the place for it.  It is very much a matter of opinion to consider either of those views narrower than your own.  You have a right to your opinion of course, but stating it may not help to build consensus.
 * I don't mean to offend anyone. I could say (perhaps should) "people who views are not as broad as mine own."  I respect others right to have a different opinion.  When they try to suggest that their view is somehow better, because it is more restrictive, or conservative, I have a problem with that.  The reason that we have laws, such as the first amendment (particularly) is to protect our right to free speech, and to protect us from religious discrimination.  I am fine with others living their lives by their values, rather than mine.  The first amendment is a tool so that others can't force their values on us.   Atom 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - Johntex\talk 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Atom, I thank you again for your reply. As you say, I'm sure we can work it.  I think putting these pictures behind a link is a workable compromise.  I would just like to reply to two things you said.  The first is about the people whose "views are not as broad" as your own.  Again, I think it is a matter of opinion which view is broader, and which is narrower.  I am not saying either one is good or bad.  Second, your reply uses the word "obscene" several times, but I was very careful not to use that word.  I am not concerned about "obscene" images because it is clear those are not allowed by law.  I am talking about pornographic images.  A screenshot of double penetration from a Meatholes movie is pornographic even if it is not obscene.  I agree with you that we can't imagine all future possibilities, but it takes almost no imagination at all to believe that someday people will try to illustrate all our articles on porn stars and porn movies with screenshots from those movies.  For that reason, this proposal you are working on is seriously needed so that we have a plan in place before this occurs. Johntex\talk 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johntex:

Some people have a view that all sex and sexuality is bad, and that any reference to it is negative. Consider that on network TV, violence and sexuality are avoided, but lots of violence is apparently okay, and sexuality is extremely limited. Even a view of Jane Jackson's breast for a moment on TV is controversial, yet a picture of a murder and rape victim on CSI is ok. Seriously skewed values in my opinion. I believe that generally sexuality is a positive, wonderful thing that we should all celibrate and enjoy (appropriately) as often as possible. Representations in the media should be less restricted. We should allow showing how people can love one another more, and if we are going to restrict anything, it should be teaching people how to harm and kill each other. The first amendment protects us from those people who have the skewed values by letting everyone believe what they wish, and have their values. We have to use it as a shield when conservative christians, and the like, try to force others to adopt their values.

Personally, I think that a screenshot from a porno film representing the acting work of a porno actress should be allowed, and accepted in society for what it is. I understand that the reality of the situation is different, and that uptight people would be offended by that. I think you are right that discussing how to deal with those issues in advance is a good thing. I don;t have easy answers, because, as I said, en encycolpedia entry that shows a clip of someone's artistic work should be appropriate. People whould see it for what it is (a way for people to make money), and possibly, some form of art. Even lacking any artistic merit at all, it is a commercial venture, and documenting it in some form should be fine. But, society (english speaking) isn't ready for that anytime soon. Even in Holland, where people have a more sensible view of sexuality, that might not fly yet. Atom 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You and all of us are not editors for people who only hold to liberal sensibilities, but are editors for the full range of people globally who read Wikipedia. We live in a very diverse world where people range from very conservative to very liberal in their sensitivities and sensibilities. It is simply foolish and likely of motivation from mere prurient interest to seek to illustrate masturbation by any method except that which is least likely to offend the most people. Male masturbation would clearly be considered pornographic to a great many people and I cannot see how it could be legal on Wikipedia without requiring age verification. No one needs for knowledge sake to view a video of a man masturbating to learn about the subject, and it is a sick mind who would not be concerned to have their 13-year-old daughter view the video. Verbal descriptions of masturbation and artwork is all that is needed. "Not for the one or the few but for the many" must be the guiding principle. CyberAnth 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for participating in our discussion and offering your view. Of course I see that part of what you say makes sense, in that many people would find such a link objectionable, and it is not our goal to offend others.  On the other hand, there are a few things you say that do not connect for me.  First, as has been discussed, Wikipedia isn't censored, and if we were to censor to limit it to the lowest common denominator of objectionability, then very little would be allowed.  Your suggest that we must remember the wide variety of global thought and cultures on an Internet medium.  Also, you suggest that this topic would not be appropriate for a thirteen year old girl to see.  In many parts of the world, allowing women to participate, and pictures of women in any context is offensive.


 * Wikipedia isn't intended to be completely non-offensive, which is why there is a disclaimer at the bottom of each page, and a conten warning withing that. It isn't intended or oriented to be a reference manual for schools, children, teenagers, or people at work.  It is intended to be a comprehensive collection of human knowledge in uncensored form.


 * As far as legality, one only need to look at the miller rule as that is what would be applied in a legal case. The context of the image, or video, in this case is everything.


 * A person from an arab culture would likely be shocked and offended at seeing the thirteen year-old daughter you mentioned, and her friends in their bikinis at the beach, while the boys in their class may very well yawn in boredom at the same scene. Context is everything, and the law would suggest that community standards should be considered.  In this medium, on the Internet, in Wikipedia, the established community standards are for not allowing censorship, especially of natural and normal processes.  Wouldn't it be a better world if people paid no more heed to a demonstration of masturbation in an educational article on the topic than it did to a video of someone dissecting a frog in a topic of that subject?  The attempts by people to censor natural and normal human behavior is what prevents that behavior from being perceived as different.  In some future world a thirteen year old teenage girl viewing an internet article on masturbation upon seeing a demonstration will merely uawn in boredom.


 * In an attempt to prevent those that are easily shocked or offended from being so, one user suggested that such things go behind a link. Although that seems unnecessary to myself, based on the reality of the diverse world you talked about, it may be necessary.


 * Atom 03:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Advantages of Linkimaging

 * I think putting any of the images which cause heated and never-ending debates should be put behind links. I think linkimaging is a perfectly even compromise. The article is just as clear and just as real with a linkimage. The linkimage capacity is a technological advancement of the Web. It makes things like Wikipedia better than a conventional encyclopedia, and I don't see any problem with using it. It is a step forward, not a step backward. These artilces are a lot better because we don't have to have everything all cramed into the text like a conventional encyclopedia does.


 * Linkimages allow the readers to have more options regarding what they want to see. It seems that those against it just use the fact that we have the freedom to include pictures as the basis for doing it. Yes, we do have the freedom to use pictures. We should have the freedom. But we should also be realistic and somewhat sensitive (or at least concerned) for to the users of this project, especially when they have a good point about compromising. I'm trying to argue a moderate viewpoint here, and that is not as easy as screaming from the left or from the right. I'm not some kind of moral crusader who wants to rid the world of nudity. I don't even think nudity is so wrong in the first place. However, I think we should do everything we can to make this project realistic, useful, diverse, and clever. To do that, someone will have to compromise something at some point. This is just one of those times. The use linkimages allows people the freedom to see it or not to see it. Forcing people to see a picture when they go to one of these articles is not going to make them more open-minded anyway.


 * This is not censorship in any way whatsoever. To censor something is to supress or delete objectionable content. A linkimage is just a simple way to use technology to give Wikipedia users choices. Any resource that offers choices is more complete and more respectable. That is also how the real world is. For example, people wear pants so they are not nude, but they reserve the right to take them off. They have a choice. People have a choice whether to go to the public beach or the nude beach. They have a choice whether to read Playboy or Time Magazine. There is nothing wrong with offering a choice in Wikipedia.

APatcher 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename: image --> multimedia
I propose that this fledgling guideline be renamed "Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-multimedia-guidelines" and that it should have separate sections that cover:


 * Images
 * Video
 * Audio
 * anything else that comes up

What say you? --Strait 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I say Bravo Strait, excellent idea.Ts umbra 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to think on that some. Photo's and Video are both images to me.  We had not considered Audio, and involving that could muddy the waters.  Atom 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While the word "image" does sometimes have a broader meaning than "2 dimensional static array of colors", I think that's how we should agree to use it here, because I think that is the most common meaning. People who see the title of this guideline will assume the meaning I have given and not the more broad meaning.  Even if they would understand the more broad meaning after arriving at the guideline, that doesn't help if the goal is to get them to click through to it in the first place.  And I think that should be our goal, because if more people read it, we will have less trouble.


 * In any case, the other issue I have brought up here is whether to make separate sections for these different media. I think we should, because trying to handle them at the same time is clumsy. --Strait 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see how the inclusion of Audio could fit into this, and how Images, Video and Audio could be discussed seperately. We've already discussed that the desire for a lead "graphic" to attract visual interest, and describe the article visually, and how that shouldn't be a video.  That shows differences in handling video and images.  We'd probably also want to avoid an automatically playing audio on an article, and would want it to be a link to an audio file.  So, audio as a "lead" would probably also be avoided.  An audio link as a lead, would probably only be desirable in very rare cases (and in sexuality articles even rarer).


 * As for renaming the guidelines, I'm not convinced that "multimedia" is the best choice, even though correct. As you point out, many people think of it in a more limited sense.  I'll keep pondering that.  Atom 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the obvious one?
You must make it clear that as part of the project, there should be no photographs of children or images including children without the specific consent of the parents of those involved, or if the subject is over legal age of consent, their own consent to the image being used. I consider this to be a fundamental when you are working on a project involving sex... OK, I know we are not censored for anyone, but I think unless the images are paintings or something, like old paintings, then we need to be extremely careful where the project steers round that one. Thor Malmjursson 11:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

These guidelines are more about the use of images that Wikipedia allows, and kind of a best practices for their use in sexology and sexuality articles. I'll give some thought, and research, to how these important issues fit. Where in WIkipedia is that covered, and so is it already covered by the time we get to following guidelines? If it were part of the guidelines, how would that best be incorporated? Wherever it is covered, as far as the consent for photos issue, my guess is that we need the consent of adults for their photos, and the consent of the parent or guardian for a photo under the age of majority (which is different than the age of consent which is 16 in most states, but is effectivley 18 in the State of Florida. Also, there is legislation that prohibits certain kinds of images of people under the age of majority, regardless of whether they were above the legal age of consent.

At any rate, since Wikipedia prohibits illegal or obscene images, the guidelines would as well. I'll research this further and get back to you. Atom 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a solution for the photo on the Talk:Anus page. Just replace it with a photo of Senator Ted Kennedy. "Your face .... Your ass .... What's the difference" ? (Duke Nukem Quote) LOL ! (thought we might need some humor to lighten things up a bit)Ts umbra 15:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is amusing... But, for NPOV politics, the latest political celebrity is Tom Foley. And, well, who could ever forget John Ashcroft. Even after all of this time, a perfect fit. Wait, look closely, the anal pucker kinda looks like his face. (with a bit more hair) Atom 21:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ok Atom, I'll make this guideline proposal for you guys to consider. "Lead Visuals for Sexuality Articles are recommended to be Line Drawings, Diagrams, or Artist Renderings (paintings, sketch art, etc.) More explicit Mulitimedia (?) such as Photographs, Audio, Videos, etc. may be used in Sexuality Articles behind links using the appropriate Link Templates in supporting roles to the Lead Visuals if the more explicit Multimedia meets all the criteria of the Laws of the State of Florida (other laws ?) as well as the established Wikipedia standards of relevance and decency (any other standards that you would want to mention) and directly compliments the Lead Visual and Article by adding more information that would give the reader a better overall understanding of the Article, Lead Visual, and Topic". I'm not very good at this. I am but a humble User here, but I hope that you editors can understand what I am trying to convey and put it in the proper lingo. I don't mean this guideline proposal to be "set in stone" either. I am just trying to give you editors something to run with. Ts umbra 14:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine to add a brief reminder that Wikipedia must be legal and to point out a few obvious examples, but it should be made clear that no new information is really being presented. Atom has said that he will research the current Wikipedia documents for a fuller explaination of this sort of thing; we can link to that.


 * I am not hearing any consensus that photographs should be hidden behind links, so I do not think we should adopt that part unless further discussion results in such a consensus. Video and audio should not play automatically, but there are other concerns there, most notably it is really annoying regardless of content, but also that audio defeats the privacy of the reader by broadcasting what he is reading. --Strait 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I probably did not make myself clear on that issue. More explicit photgraphs, video, and audio would be on the Article page, but behind Links. Audio and Video would never play automatically. You would have to click the link to play the Audio or Video, which would give the reader a choice. If the link was accurately described, the reader should have no problem as to whether they wanted to open it or not, or for that matter, if they should open the link at the public or school library for instance, or wait until they get home (or just use headphones if they want to open the Audio Link ... LOL). Ts umbra 21:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm not making myself clear. There is no consensus that any image should be hidden behind a link.  We agree about the audio and video. --Strait 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the current proposal is that things defined as "sex acts" would be linkimaged, and nothing else. And a work in progress proposal is not a consensus.  Atom 01:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm.... Wikipedia seems to have semi-coopted the word "consensus". Here I was using it in its normal English sense to mean "when, during a conversation, everyone agrees or at least people who don't agree to accept the view of the rest." --Strait 07:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to that post, Ts umbra, could you also add to the "Laws of the State of Florida" bit, so that it reads "Laws of the State of Florida and any other relevant European laws and guidelines", since most people in the UK and Europe would have very little idea of what the Laws of the State of Florida would actually allow, imo. Thor Malmjursson 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I only have a vauge understanding of this sort of law, but that understanding is that only the laws of Florida and the US matter, since that is where the Wikipedia servers are. --Strait 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Strait that's the way that I understand it too. From what I have read at the Commons, the only Laws that apply are that of the United States and the State of Florida where the Wikipedia servers are. Ts umbra 21:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is correct. And the Obscenity law in Florida can be less restrictive of first amendment rights, but not more restrictive.  In their case, they essemtially mimic the miller test, and then explicitly add that a women breastfeeding is never obscene.  Atom 01:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could there, in that case, be some sort of general description or listing of which relevant laws of Florida apply, since users posting relevant images will need to know these in order to make an informed decision about whether the image fits the law? Thor Malmjursson 12:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The relevant law, section 847 - obscenity, is already in the guidelines. The section basically defines it in the same way that the supreme court decision Miller v. California (Miller Test/SLAPS) does, except it is slightly less restrictive.  Now, there are a variety of Florida laws regarding similar things, but they all rely on the legel definition of obscenity, and that legal definition is limited by the federal definition (Miller test.)  So, I am not trying to oversimplify, but that is the simplest way to say it.  Atom 15:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Investigation of how necessary a detailed photograph guideline is
I'm wondering just how many photographs there are or have been on sex-related pages, not counting vandalism/ill-intentioned photographs, pages which are simply about body parts such as at penis, or photographs that would be generally considered quite tame such as the one at erogenous zones or spreadeagle (position). I know about the ones on:


 * pearl necklace (sexuality)
 * masturbation (not there now, discussed here)

There are probably a couple of others that I don't know about, but I'm guessing there's not more than a small handful. If so, it seems to me that the discussion above about whether or not to hide photographs of sex acts behind links is premature. There are barely any non-anatomical photographs as it is, much less ones which depict sex acts (although I guess it depends what you call a "sex act"). We should perhaps wait for there to be an example or two of such a photograph before trying to handle every possibility. --Strait 08:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I see your point. I think that the "sex act as behind a link" was proposed as a general thing, without many specific examples, as you say. Some that comes to mind (maybe) would be:
 * Creampie (sexual act), Bondage (BDSM) (if you consider that a sex act -- I don't), Mating, Erotic spanking,
 * sex acts that have graphics, but not photos Oral sex, Deep throat (sexual act) (image removed recently), Anal sex (artwork), Pegging (sexual practice), Sexual intercourse, Tribadism, Frot, List of sex positions, Orgy (Artwork), Ménage à trois, Mutual masturbation, Anal masturbation (no good image here, just anatomical diagrams), Mammary intercourse, Threesome
 * NO photos, graphics or artwork yet include fisting, Anal-oral contact, Barebacking, Erotic massage, Foreplay, Bukkake, Gang bang, Snowballing (sexual practice), Felching, Teabagging, Intercrural sex, Axillary intercourse, Sexual roleplaying, Handjob, Fingering (sexual act), Urolagnia, Prostate massage, Coitus reservatus, Nyotaimori, Wakame sake, Rusty trombone, Urethral sounding, Quickie (sex)
 * Sex related, but not sex acts Dildo, Aneros, Sybian, Anal beads, Sex doll

Of course, I am sure I missed some.

To get to your point, I agree it is too early to set firm policy on something that we don't well understand, and is not well defined. (What things are a "sex act" precisely). I think it is okay to have it in our draft, but too soon to have consensus.

I try to imagine, what if someone added a legitimate image (like in anus), or video clip, of some of these. How would I feel about it, what is responsible, what is within the applicable laws, what might offend? For instance, consider from above Bukkake, Barebacking, Rusty trombone or fisting. Atom 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, how many of the above listed "sex acts" could be represented by a legitimate photograph that would pass the "Miller Test" anyway ? And how many of the above listed "sex acts" have anything to do with "human reproduction" ? Most of the above listed "sex acts" would best be categorized under the headings of "Non-Reproductive Sexual Activites", "Sexual Fetishes", and "Sexual Perversions". True or Not ? (I now await crucifixion) .... Ts umbra 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Atom 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * chuckles* Well, I can tell that you are open minded. First of all, I don't believe any of them are "sexual perversions".  Maybe they deviate from the norm, and could be called "deviate".  The word perversion adds judgement, and is relative.  It might be a perversion of your views and usual sexual activities.  About the only one that isn't a normal part of my sex life might be Nyotaimori and Wakame sake.  Which ones could be represented on wikipedia with a legitimate photograph?  That's a good question.  Hence the value of our discussion.  Wouldn't an article on safe fisting technique be educational?  And what is wrong with "non-reproductive sex?" or "Sexual Fetishes"?


 * (LOL) Atom, I am more openminded than you think. Somebody has to play "Devils Advocate" and since this discussion seems to be mostly you, me, Strait, and Johntex, someone has to bring up that viewpoint. I don't have anything against non-reproductive sexual activities, sexual fetishes, or sexual deviations as long as it is mutual and nobody gets hurt, but some people do, so I made the statement. But I will say this, I ate a huge dish of Mexican food today. When I went to the bathroom to engage in the act of Defecation tonight, I stood up and looked thoughtfully into the commode when I had finished. That long brown stinky thing floating down in there pretty much convinced me that the Anus is not a sex organ. (why don't jalapenos digest ?) LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ts umbra 02:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, getting serious again and back to the task at hand. How much longer will this discussion go on before making a final decision on these matters. Do we need to set a cutoff date ? Ts umbra 02:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that there is more work to be done. We should also get the opinions of a number of other people, if we can. I'm in no particular hurry. My modus operandi on Wikipedia has evolved to realizing there are no deadlines, it is continuous change. (Please see Infinite monkey theorem) Atom 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. New to this project, but it's fascinating reading. Personally, I think:


 * Vanity images should be used if they're merit worthy- your idea of none from major editors of a page seems a good compromise for ensuring some sort of impartial judgement.


 * The idea of having photos of sex acts linked to rather than in-article, in my opinion, is a good idea but sets a dangerous precedent. It'll spread to anatomical drawings, which I disagree with.


 * I feel the same about line art. I think it is useful for sex acts, but not so useful for anatomical. And if it's the preferred form for sex acts, it will spread.

So yes, on Penis I'd support having images of Wikipedia editors carefully chosen by the community as a whole to illustrate the page, whereas on Masturbation I'd support having line-art on the page and links to videos or images. Which I think is what this project says. If so, I agree entirely. The project should probably define the areas it covers better tho, rather than just saying "our sexology and sexuality area". As some people will interpret that to include anatomical articles, others won't. Fishies Plaice 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us use the Britannica as a guideline
Dear Wikipedia-

I am very disturbed that I cannot allow my children to use this resource.

I am FAR from a prude.

I am of the opinion that the removal of naked pictures is reasonable. What exactly is accomplished? I have never encountered an encyclopedia that I could not show to my children.

I am very angry that the 'user community' has allowed pornography, as defined by the FCC (which are a bunch of b******s I'll agree, but they err on the side of letting my children see it at the least), to appear on this site. For those of you without children -- I can do nothing to convince you of your error. For those of you with children: really? You are going to tell you daughter to go look at some penis pictures? Really? I wish I'd known your daughters when I was growing up. In fact...

Xchanter 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter

Thanks for your opinion. New users to Wikipedia often don't understand it. You have some misperceptions about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a competitor, or analog to the Encyclopedia Britannica, nor does it attempt to be. It is an encylopedia, and as such is attempting to document things factual throughout the reality of life. Also, Wikipedia is not advertised as being for children, or as being "child safe", or "safe for work". When they build an inter-state highway through your town, and by your house, it is your, and other parents responsibility to keep their children from wandering onto the highway, or to take them there in your car when use of it is desired. Being angry and asking the local government to reduce the speed limit on that highway to 5 mph in order to prevent children wandering onto the highway from being harmed isn't consistent with the design of the highways, or reasonable.

One thing that I wonder is what is it about nudity that bothers you? Nudity isn't inherently sexual, (not that there is anything wrong with sexuality), nor it is offensive or pornographic. As a point of fact, the FCC regulates only television and radio broadcast, and not cable TV or movies, or any other form of communication. Many people are unhappy with their heavy-handed censorship of perfectly reasonable material, and so using them as an example is not only inadequate, but largely falls on deaf ears. As for pornographic content, nothing on Wikipedia that I have seen qualifies as even erotica, much less pornographic. Of course, the term itself is relative to the person, as there is no agreed upon definition of "pornographic". That's why we rely on the law, rather than a spectum of opinions. The law that applies to Wikipedia is United States and the State of Florida law, and both have clear guidelines (see other references here to the Miller Rule) as to what is "obscene" and therefore not allowed. The point of the discussion here is to develop self use guidelines for keeping well within the law, and even beyond, to try and not offend people. This isn't easy when some people find something as normal and natural as a picture of a naked woman to be "pornographic". Atom 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: The editor who initiated this section, Xchanter, was perma-blocked the following day for making repeated legal threats against wikipedia. On an unrelated note, I read through Atom's discussion with JohnTex (above) and wanted to add a brief comment. While I'm most adamantly opposed to censorship, and I think that real legal issues on WP need to be handled by Brad Patrick and the Foundation, previous discussions with JohnTex have convinced me that he has several valid points. The use of linkimage for graphic depictions of sex acts or primary sex organs seems a reasonable compromise between including valid material, and reducing the "shock hazard" to readers of a sensitive disposition. Furthermore, I've found a very simple and pragmatic benefit to the use of linkimage: it can hugely reduce the number of "image blankings" a controversial article or image receives. Since I regard unsourced and undiscussed blankings to be a type of vandalism, I'm convinced that anything which helps reduce vandalism is a good thing. I have circa 400 articles Watchlisted as being "high-traffic vandal targets" and, unsurprisingly, a fair number of those are articles relate to sex and sexuality. Naturally, I cringe every time a title pops up with an edit by an Anon IP. Like I said, reducing vandalism would be a good thing. I don't know if I've contributed anything useful to the discussion or not, mostly I just wanted to "sound off" someplace where people might actually listen :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)



Dear "xchanter", if you have a problem with it, don't go to that page! mike61 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.181.136 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Never-Ending Image Debate?

 * I personally don't think sexual types of pictures offensive, but there is still a controversy with unclear parameters here. Therefore, the issue will always be "borderline" and "debatable". What I think we should try to avoid is having people come to Wikipedia and encountering what they consider a "sexual surprise" -- especially since the quality of most Wikipedia articles would NOT be diminished in any way by excluding genital pictures, videos, or illustrations from the actual text of the article. Since we have linkimages and resource links where people can find visual examples that include a wide variety, the pictures and the controversies are not really necessary on Wikipedia. This is not censorship, but it is a way to try to end and transcend a complicated debate.

What we can do is give users the freedom to see it or not to see it by using linkimages. It's not good to have people forced to view an image just because they are researching sexuality AND it is not good to have people prevented from gaining access to images when they need to see them. The only reasonable compromise I have seen proposed so far is to use linkimages.

There are people in this discussion that have an agenda for "sex-positive" politics and people that have an agenda to "erase sexual things" on the grounds of morality. Wikipedia is not the place for that because it is supposed to be neutral. There should be a "middle-of-the-road" policy to maintain neutral status.

There are only a few people who managed to find this discussion page, and it seems a lot of them are minority leftists or rightists. What if we put this issue to a vote across the entire Wikipedia? -- Or at lest a notice to vote on the sexuality related articles. I believe there is a silent majority of moderates out there who would agree a compromise is in order.


 * APatcher 11:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)



Failure to reach a consensus
It appears that this proposal has not attracted broad-based support and is not likely to. It should either progress or be marked as rejected. --Kevin Murray 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself. Thank you for your opinion but that's exactly what it is... your opinion. --CyclePat2 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This does seem to be rejected, so I have tagged it accordingly, per Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected." Prolog 18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reject. I've been working on Commons:Commons:Sexual content, which I feel comes much closer to being a workable guideline, though I'm not saying I'd vote for it just yet.  Your guideline says that Wikipedia uploaders have to keep 2257 records, but as I understand the discussion from Commons, noncommercial producers don't have to, even if that terrible law does not go down in flames the way it ought.  Nor do uploaders need to avoid identifiable photos of the players on a public soccer field; nor is the cropping of photos always a bad thing (e.g. middle finger).  Many of your suggestions about which article has too many photos or which are just right... well, a person could say, that's an issue for the specific article editors... even if you'd bothered to specify the revision from the history of each article that you regard as the good one!  Out of this whole proposal, the only good point I found was the part about honesty in labeling photos.
 * I am also concerned that this seems aimed toward a certain phenomenon where WikiProjects were trying to set policies unilaterally. I was very much against this back when it was only about rhesus macaques.  While I'm not pleased with certain aspects, the emergence of Naming conventions (fauna) represents the general belief that guidelines should be general and not promulgated by one small WikiProject.  This issue with sexual images is a Wiki-wide phenomenon and no one is going to accept that it is up to members of a particular WikiProject to set the policy (if any).  If you want a formal guideline or policy you need to put it out there in the main WP: space and get consensus from the community at large. Wnt (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

List of youngest birth mothers
Maybe this is not a good place to post this, but I figured this is probably a discussion you have had before. I need some people to express their opinion on the use of linkimage and their opinion on the use in general of the picture in List of youngest birth mothers.

Please express your opinion at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers. --Morten LJ 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Designed by Paedophiles for paedophiles
When (homemade) porn crosses into the arena of childrens education, then you need to ask yourselves is wikipedia a truly eductional site or a site which uses sexual images as exploitation material.


 * Children shouldn't be looking up pearl necklaces. Mghabmw (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the subject of paedophiles is on wikipedia but would that mean we should be exposed to the images thats associated with that depraved mindset?

Similar subjects might also include Satanic rituals and sacrifices which also includes the above.

If this site is to be a true knowledge base then it should maintain a healthy distance from it being associated with people wishing to distribute porn.

At least on porn sites you are required to verify your age, unfortunately wikipedia falls far short when compared to other porn websites.

The conclusion is that Wikipedia's objective is based more on hedonism rather than educational —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.196.3.112 (talk • contribs).

- actually i'd agree that it's more about hedonism than education. there's no need for this crap. it's just one of many reasons i'll never take this endeavor seriously. 68.40.167.171 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that child protection should be considered, but I wonder, what image would you use if you wanted to show how male or female masturbation works? Porn is something you make for other people to get them sexually aroused, and I personally don't think that people come to wikipedia to jack off. If someone wants to find children or "normal" porn, he or she founds it. Showing what it really is by pictures is Wikipedia's job. However child protection is not (just) about protecting them from porn. It's about protecting them from sexuality based topics because it can alter their sexual development. I have no idea what should be an age limit nor how to filter underaged viewers, still, unless someone says that I'm not right, and showing a 10 year old kid how anal sex works would not alter (or not in a deviant way) her or his development I think it is a matter we should attend. --Kangaxx (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there was a valid point raised here. Why do porn websites require you to click you are 18 years or older to enter? What are the legal implications?  Can we have a sexually explicit images (like some porn websites do even where they ask your age!?). A check in the laws could be something what Wikipedia needs. --CyclePat (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've since addressed this point at Sexual content/FAQ. My view is that we don't know whether there are pedophiles here.  Do your remember someone asking you for an ID card before you posted?  Covering up a few naughty-bits in articles about sex doesn't mean that someone couldn't be chatting up your child and arranging a spot to meet, either in an unwatched talk page or at a See Also link that leads to a bad place.  By not censoring the site, we provide parents with a way to see, visually, that this is a hard hat area, an encyclopedia under construction.  If you want a nice smooth safe version of Wikipedia you just have to select out "safe" articles and pictures, or edit them down to that, and put them on your own server with child-safe restrictions on where conversations take place and what sites are linked to.  You're even allowed to run ads and make a fair profit for your work! Wnt (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts
I realise this page has been dead for a while, but I just wanted to express my thoughts of some of the suggestions, for consideration. I will not argue that we are ultimately bound by law, and it's only additional constraints that I'm concerned about.

Although on the face of it the principle of "given two equally informative images, choose the less offensive one" sounds good, the problem is there's a false dichotomy here: both images may be more informative than either one by itself. A great analogy is hippo, which includes both a photo of a modern hippo, as well as drawings of extinct hippos. Similarly, line drawings and photographs may emphasize different characteristics of anatomy and sexual positions, and I believe they're frequently most useful when combined. An image which does not add enough to justify the space and attention it takes up in the article should always be removed, regardless of how offensive it is.

It's also vital to distinguish "pornographic" images from "legally obscene" images. Wikipedia needs pornographic images, to properly illustrate subjects related to pornography; it's the placement of images in places where they are out-of-context and don't add to the topic that is problematic. For example, although this is against current consensus, I'd argue that a porn actor known for his large penis should be shown with his penis visible, as it is an important defining characteristic, just as photos of giraffes include their necks.

I have no complaints about the identifiability guideline, but I do think there are obviously cases where identifiability is unavoidable; for example, sexual images involving the face.

Any responses welcome. :-) Dcoetzee 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a third party
Can someone take a look at Woman on top (sex position). A number of SPAs continue to add back in a graphic image which really adds nothing to the discussion. There are multiple line drawings and old illustrations, and then there is this one poorly shot, poorly lit, poorly staged, difficult to see image image which I can't help but think is somebody who is just keeping it up there (no pun intended) as a trophy (e.g. to have your picture on WP). 7 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Status of this page?
Is this still a proposed guideline or is it a failed one? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)