Commons:Village pump/Proposals

‎Higher standards for "porn" images: r
← Older revision
Revision as of 23:21, 21 March 2013
Line 74:
Line 74:
 
:This might be appropriate, as too often only late (not in the early phase) after upload such images are found to be copyvios or the Flickr account suddenly disappears, which makes their legitimacy questionable, or there are deletion requests allegedly from the depicted person. All this produces a lot of additional work for admins and a potential risk of litigation for re-users, not to mention the embarrassment of a depicted person, whose images have been distributed without her/his consent. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 21:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:This might be appropriate, as too often only late (not in the early phase) after upload such images are found to be copyvios or the Flickr account suddenly disappears, which makes their legitimacy questionable, or there are deletion requests allegedly from the depicted person. All this produces a lot of additional work for admins and a potential risk of litigation for re-users, not to mention the embarrassment of a depicted person, whose images have been distributed without her/his consent. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 21:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:I would suggest to start as simple as possible, so we don't end up discussing the fine print for days and weeks on end without achieving anything. One rule that (in my opinion) is quite sensible, and that would cover a lot of questionable images would be: "Do not allow brand new, not yet established accounts to upload sexually explicit material of any kind." We could define "brand new" as every account with less than 100 (or 50) edits, and we could make exceptions when said account is linked to their home wiki and show that they are an established user on said wiki. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 22:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:I would suggest to start as simple as possible, so we don't end up discussing the fine print for days and weeks on end without achieving anything. One rule that (in my opinion) is quite sensible, and that would cover a lot of questionable images would be: "Do not allow brand new, not yet established accounts to upload sexually explicit material of any kind." We could define "brand new" as every account with less than 100 (or 50) edits, and we could make exceptions when said account is linked to their home wiki and show that they are an established user on said wiki. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 22:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
::That sounds like a reasonable place to start. To start with, it's probably simplest to define "brand new" as "not autoconfirmed" (4 days, 10 edits). It makes sense to make exceptions for users who have good records on Wikimedia elsewhere - but making this easily checkable probably needs a new gadget (one that pulls the relevant data for every user and puts it somewhere visible). Such a gadget might be generally useful, of course. That leaves the big question: how to deal with uploads that fall foul of it. Speedy deletion as if they were obvious copyvios (with appropriate messages)? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 23:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

 
:If you want to try a real and current case, see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gheent these uploads], in several of which the depicted person is identifiable per face. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 22:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:If you want to try a real and current case, see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gheent these uploads], in several of which the depicted person is identifiable per face. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|talk]]) 22:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&diff=93051713&oldid=93049442