this is really an update on a couple of previous threads, so if mods are so inclined, and reckon it's helpful - do go ahead and merge or whatever magic it is you guys do!

Having taken Lar's (and heaps of other people's) advice that my initial proposal about sexual content on wikimedia commons was the wrong way to go about things, I made what I thought were fairly modest (geddit) proposals at existing policy pages - basically saying that there are some contexts where wikimedia should insist on having the subject's permission before hosting / publishing / service providing / whatever it is commons does the pic.

One context I suggested is public nudity at a beach - that folk might understandably have the expectation that their image will not be taken, and made available online. Another context I feel permission of the subject is desirable (and should be required by policy) is stuff that might loosely be considered sexual - things like 'visible panty line' or upskirt shots....

That latter deletion discussion is kinda interesting because Jimbo popped in, probably having had his interest tweaked on his talk page.... anyone who implies that Jimbo (or I) have smutty intentions in browsing hundreds and hundreds of bums and bits is behaving outrageously.

Commons tends to polarise on issues like this, with the knock on effect in my view of generally stymie-ing any productive conversation - the upshot (and upskirt!) currently being that the site overall continues in my view to be irresponsible - it's just not cool to host a bunch of pic.s of naked women taken without their permission on the beach.

If I can ever work out how to include images here, I'll pull a Daily Mirror and include shocking and disgusting photos on pages 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 19.... .... ....... ;-)

Cool? It's cool enough ..... it's just not nice.

I sense that you're thinking that no-one at Wikipedia is taking your advocacy of this highly important and emotionally distraught situation seriously enough. Have you considered copying some of the strategies undertaken by the suffragettes to get your point across? There were quite a few of them in Australia, I believe. Now, I'm not suggesting you throw yourself in front of racehorses, or anything, but a good idea would be to get someone to take pictures of you, naked or in a state of undress, and upload them to Wiki. Then complain like mad about their presence; maybe even alert the papers/TV about the whole sorry mess and watch, laughing, as the pro-filth/tits/arses Wikid people leave the project in disgrace.

It's just an idea.

Until you're caught, and anything wrought by your actions is undone by the revelation, except for a snarky Guardian article I guess.

It's probably not going to change until someone unimpeachable complains about it.

Sorry to hear you rejected the advice to develop your ideas in a workspace independent of Wikipedia such as a WR blog post and instead went in the exact opposite direction, subjecting yourself to the unproductive wonkery of of Wikipedia's processes. I view you as a Wikipedian with progressive and socially responsible tendencies but still unable to extract yourself from your own over-involvement.

Ditto AMIB's concern over the plan, so instead I'd suggest checking if you know anyone with a picture on of themselves Commons, where that image was not uploaded with their permission. Then, while it may come out later that you prompted them to raise a fuss, at least you won't have engineered the entire situation, which should help. And, regardless, either method should work to highlight the problem and probably get a few more on your side.

I can see that you're both very moral people, and I stand corrected. Imagine how embarrassed I feel over the way my ridiculous, not-so-cunning plan has been demolished. Thank you. Thank you both. Hugs.


My brain hurts.


Once more, thank you. I wonder - could you give me some advice on where I could buy a great big Melting Pot? It has to be big enough to take the world, and all it's got, and I intend to keep it stirring for a hundred years, or more, and turn out coffee-coloured people by the score. Cheers.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDS ACCROSS AAAAAAAAAMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I opened this thread with the expectation that it would be a further exploration of the "Would JzG still be a WP:DICK if he were no longer an admin" question.

I reckon I largely agree with you - I'd actually done most of the wiki work before your advice btw - and unfortunately the fact remains that I sort of know how to do basic wiki editing, but am both lazy and short of time in figuring out things like blogs etc. (my own, like heaps of them, is basically dead) - though sure - I also subscribe more than some to the 'why not suggest fixes as well as pointing out problems' argument - my jury's out on whether or not 'because wiki communities are basically dysfunctional, and you might as well try and sell condoms to the vatican' is a valid rejoinder.

So my previously linked wiki writeup remains, and if I can be bothered I might rattle a cage on this at some time in the future, otherwise at least I'll have a cassandra like satisfaction if this were to kick up the type of fuss I see as heading wiki's way.....

Wikimedia is behaving really poorly, I reckon - it's a shame.

Selling condoms to The Vatican might be easier than you think provided you don't ask them to help you design them first.

Here's one I came across earlier. In the BLP thread, the phrase "Brazilian wax" was mentioned, and I wondered what it was. I found the wondrous page on Bikini waxing (T-H-L-K-D), which features prominently many photos of the "after" of bikini waxing, but none of the process itself. None of the photos feature faces, but I am led to believe they are of "ladies".

We are the world; we are the children.

Stand tall, stand proud; voices that care are crying out loud!

Do they know it's Christmas?