Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Shortcuts: COM:VP/P • COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2021/04.

Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?

 
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 5 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

From en.wiki - adding a "have consent" checkbox to the uploadersEdit

It is likely worthwhile to point to this discussion [1] on Jimmy Wales' talk page on en.wiki related to image uploads on commons. Specifically over the lack of any check if the uploader has gained the right for consent of an identifiable person for photos taken in public places. While the Commons image policy has information on this as well as the caution when consent is required, it is not made part of the upload process. Jimmy suggests that there should be a checkbox in the uploader that asks if the user if consent has been obtained, as to at least minimally meet this WMF resolution, m:WMF Resolutions/Images of identifiable people. I don't know what is reasonable or feasible, but I thought I would drop it here as it a concern there. --Masem (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

While I think that this is a really good point and it's something that many, many pages on Wikimedia Commons already discuss. My issue with this is that there is literally no way to verify this, people can always lie and just because you took a photograph of a celebrity at a book signing convention doesn't mean that you have the means to directly contact them to send OTRS permission, in fact e-mailing a celebrity will likely get your message(s) in the spambox or have it deleted by an apathetic assistant. The check box would simply become an unverifiable formality which would require nothing but good faith that the uploader isn't lying. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Unrelated comment, I would like to point out how odd it is that Wikimedia Commons policy proposals are being discussed on a rather bitey user talk page on a completely different website. While English loves to hold on to their sovereignty on all interwiki matters (excluding Global Bans and Global Locks), like how Wikidata information is always avoided there. Yet they love to dictate how other Wikimedia websites do their things. Of course, they are absolutely right in this case, but their "WikiSovereignty" only goes one way. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I can answer that since I was the person who started the discussion. Almost 9 years ago the board expressed a desire to achieve "the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media". I know from uploading images here that this has not been done, so I thought I would ask a board member. Jimmy Wales was a member of the board who passed that resolution, so I assumed he would be a good person to answer a question about what the board had done to make that goal happen since then. Mo Billings (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We were under the impression that Wales has nothing to say about Commons, considering that he very publicly "left" the project many years ago.
He's welcome to raise a proposal here for the community to consider. Obscure discussions on another project are not the way to bring the Wikimedia Community on board with ideas for improvement.
For those unaware, in a quiet way "Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same" is what happens as courtesy deletions are commonplace on this project whenever reasonable and with a good faith presumption for the requestor even when anonymous.
Thanks -- (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know Mr Wales's history with Commons, but I started the discussion on his talk page because I know that he is a member of the board. If you like, you can distill my question down to "Why hasn't this been done 9 years after the board set it as a goal?". I think it would be more helpful to discuss ways that this goal could be achieved rather than throwing shade at Mr Wales. Mo Billings (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
To the extent that it's reasonable to do so, it has been implemented.
There are at least two WMF Trustees that are active on Commons, and have been for the past few years. Maybe you would enjoy asking them for their views on whether the current WMF board feels otherwise and if there is any evidence to support doing more than has been done. -- (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, I raised it here, not because "This is what Jimmy said" , but that the underlying issue of compliance with the WMF resolution is a valid question, whomever asked it. It just had the visibility due to Jimmy raising it, but any action should not be just because Jimmy raised it, but on the merits of the basic problem. --Masem (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
No evidence has been provided that any change beyond improvement made in the several years since the WMF board resolution would be recommended. There's not actually a proposal being made here.
Courtesy deletions exist, model consent requirements and templates exist, and IDENT already embraces the reasonable legally meaningful understanding of expectations of privacy.
To make a case for more than this needs to start with meaningful evidence, not opinions based on events several years past a decade ago. -- (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who's on the WMF board, with the exception of Jimmy Wales. I hope he raises it either with the board or with whoever was tasked with seeing that the resolution achieved its stated goal. You seem very hostile. Have I done something t upset you? Mo Billings (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Teat dilators, just an example. An editor who is going out of their way to cause disruption and appears in their short contribution history to only be here to create a hostile environment is the one who needs to be asked why they are "upset". (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You think old ads for teat dilators are somehow disruptive? Are you similarly offended by other common tools of dairy farming like milking machines? Mo Billings (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
What I think stays in my head, it's not a matter for others to speculate on. The facts are that single purpose accounts that completely focus on uploading extracted crops of adverts for "teat dilators" from documents where we already have the entire journal hosted from the Internet Archive, and then go on to upload File:President Donald J Trump looking at Japanese cartoon pornography.png is a disruptive pattern. When examined, this behaviour appears creepy or a deliberate pattern of creating a hostile environment for others. -- (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You're not from cattle country, are you? Mo Billings (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This is creepy too. -- (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Note similar issues raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Mo_Billings. -- (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Similar issues"? Someone (not me) made a proposal on the village pump for discussing proposals. How is that an issue and what does it have to do with a groundless complaint made about incivility? Mo Billings (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose having a check box. Years ago it was possible to upload photos if you had an email permission from copyrightholder. Then OTRS was introduced and then it was required to send permissions to the central mail box. The reason was that it was easy to claim that you had a permission but we had no good proof. I think it is the same here. Everyone can say yes I have a permission. But we have no proof. So if we require permission we might as well require the subject to send a permission to OTRS. I think if we introduce the checkbox then soon someone would mass nominating thousand of files where the box is not filled out. If you take a photo of someone in a public space then generally a permission is not needed. It is more relevant if taken in a private place.
If someone send a mail and ask that a photo of them is deleted then we can do that or discuss it case by case. And if someone worry about permission they can always ask the uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Incapable of proof, susceptible to gaming, and so impossible to police. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Following COM:PEOPLE, I would support something like this. If we're going to do so, however, a simple checkbox for consent isn't sufficient, as it ignore public/private distinctions, country-specific rules, consent for taking the picture vs. publishing, and the nature of the photo itself. Something like this would be better, but I suspect that there's little chance a proposal that begins on enwp will be successful here. Nonetheless:
"does this depict an identifiable person?" and if yes:
"which country was this photo taken in?" (this is something which would be useful in FOP situations, too, by the way)
"is this photo taken in a public place?"
"did the person depicted consent to this photo being taken?"
"did the person depicted consent to this photo being published?"
A "no" to either of the bottom should prompt a warning and categorize the image accordingly.
The argument that we shouldn't have rules or warnings in place because people will break those rules or ignore the warnings is absurd. We might as well not ask "do you own this" too because people can just lie?
The idea is to make people pause for a moment and think before completing the upload. I suspect most people don't even think about consent in this way, and many others would not feel comfortable lying, so simply prompting people will weed out many problematic uploads.
Enforcement would be difficult. This is not a panacea for all matters of consent, but seems like a reasonable start to at least require that people are thinking about consent in ways that conform to COM:PEOPLE. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree and support this type of proposal; I oppose a simple checkbox. This is a real issue and we should do our best to follow the WMF resolution. M.nelson (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this type of proposal; it sounds better than merely a simple checkbox.--Vulphere 02:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "consent of an identifiable person for photos taken in public places". Are photographs taken in public places really an issue? meta:WMF_Resolutions/Images_of_identifiable_people only mentions "portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission", and Commons already has Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --ghouston (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • About "an identifiable person". In most cases it is always possible for someone to identify someone and as more and more goes online then it is more and more likely that we can identify someone. In 1 year perhaps it is possible to identify someone we can't identify today using some fancy software. And what about the picture of today File:Hallstatt kath. Kirche Knappenaltar Kreuzigung 01.jpg? I think we all have a good idea of who it is on the cross. Do we know if he gave permission for someone painting him like that? So does "an identifiable person" only apply for persons still alive or does also apply after they are dead? --MGA73 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • At least in the U.S., most images implicitly have consent, since anyone in a public place in the U.S. implicitly consents to have their picture taken. But then the question becomes: consent for what usage? For example, also in the U.S., one must actively consent to have one's picture used to promote a product (e.g. used in an ad). While in theory it is possible to give blanket consent for such use, I would never ask that of the subject of a photo unless it was precisely being taken as a commercially available stock photo and they were a model being paid up front. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose having a check box. Forcing people to say "yes I did" is evil. People are used to checking such boxes (software EULAs anyone?) as the only way to get forward. We tell them about COM:IDENT and COM:DIGNITY and ask about images we find problematic. Should we not if there was a checked box? We can add warnings in the upload wizard and we could have a checkbox for noting the warnings. A checkbox prompting people to lie instead of asking for advice is no good. –LPfi (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support consent process There are two questions combined here: should wiki document consent when the uploader wishes to note it, and should that documentation be this particular proposed process? I oppose this process, but I support the concept of documenting consent. Most people opposing say that we should not have a mandatory consent process. I agree that we should not make anything mandatory, but note that already and for years, Commons uploaders have been documenting consent for photos on Commons by their own choice. The problem is that so many people document this in different ways, and there is no uniform recommended way to do this, so everyone does it differently than everyone else and the nature of "consent" is different in many cases. I have a consent process propose in draft at Commons:Model license and case studies at Commons:Model license/Case studies. If anyone wants to advance the development of an idea then I would join. Some years ago I also made a grant request to organize legal review of industry standards for model consent to draft a consent document for wiki. I would still do that if the will was around - meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we all agree that there should be concent but in the old days many permissions for photos were "Hi can I use your photo on Wikipedia?" And the reply were "Yes of course." or "I would be happy to see my photo used on Wikipedia". The problem is that permissions for Wikipedia is not good enough because content on Wikipedia can also be used outside Wikipedia so that is why we have a formal standard to use via OTRS. And if we get a permission we have volunteers that check the permission and contact the copyrightholder if there is a problem.
I bet that if someone sees a celebrety somewhere they will go "Uh can I take your photo?" and the celebrety would say "Yes". The question should however have been something like “Hi, I would like to take a photo of you and upload it to Commons. Can you affirm that if you say yes then you content to have your photo taken and uploaded on Wikimedia Commons and that you agree to that it is published under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. And that you acknowledge that by doing so you grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. You also confirm that you are aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. Also you are aware that the copyright holder (me as photographer) always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. You acknowledge that you cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.”
So the question is what should a checkbox say? Should it simply say "Did you ask for permission?" Or should it incluse all requirements "Did you ask for a permission that lived up to these x requirements: 1) You asked for permission to thake the photo? 2) You explicitly mentioned that you would upload it to Commons? 3) You explicitly mentioned that photos on Commons can be used every where? 4) You explicitly mentioned that photos on Commons also can be used for commercial purposes? ...." If anything I prefer that there is a link with "If you upload photos of persons make sure to check <relevant link>". --MGA73 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't need a model to consent to "commercial use", because that term means something very different in the stock industry. Selling a news photo of people at the site of an event, for example, does not require their consent in most countries and is considered "editorial" rather than "commercial" use. So asking for a "commercial" release is likely to confuse the subject as that is not how the term is generally understood in the context of model releases. -- King of ♥ 14:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a statement during the upload process, reject the actual checkbox. I understand the idea but not every upload involves an identifiable person in a public area. A checkpoint that says "IF there is an identifiable person and IF it is in a public area, check this box" is going to be ignored if it's largely irrelevant and I think a general warning that the image could be deleted absent active consent and then requesting deletion of those images if more effective. A checkpoint is a false sense of security. We can't even get people to stop uploads "because I found it on the internet" regardless of checkboxes and this check would create more problems if we assume rights based on a person checking the box. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info More forum shopping at Commons:Village_pump#Idea:_explicitly_disallow_nudity_uploading_from_otherwise_non-contributors. -- (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mo Billings has (finally) been locked as a sockpuppet. -- (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - it relieves us of potential legal issues and makes the uploader responsible for their representation. As a member of the VRT (formerly Otrs), I believe that checkbox would be very useful, and a time saver that would spare volunteers some of the back and forth emails we're sending now to request model releases, etc. Atsme Talk 📧 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Volume Title to {{Book}}Edit

Currently {{Book}} has no field for Volume Title, e.g. the specific name given to a volume in a series. I’m proposing to add this common bit of metadata. Languageseeker (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Review category and a new container category for all kinds of commons files needing reviewEdit

there are Category:License review needed Category:Media needing category review Category:To be checked Category:Singers to check Category:South by Southwest to check...

i decided to make {{Review category}} that would automatically transclude relevant header templates for any such cat. see Category:WLE 2016 Pakistan unreviewed Category:Singers to check for demo. please feel free to edit and improve the template.

i'd also like to propose a new Category:Files requiring review that would be a flat list of all these cats that transclude {{Review category}}.

what do you think?--RZuo (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't think that creating "Category:Files requiring review" goes against any current policy and / or guideline and as it's simply a transclusion of already existing pages it is handy to create as an easier to manage page. I don't think that creating such a page requires community consensus, but I do think that it would be best to leave a message regarding its creation in the main village pump after creating it, so people know what pages to watch to find images needing a review. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot that deletes Copy to Wikimedia Commons templateEdit

I am proposing a potential bot that removes the Copy to Wikimedia Commons template on all files that have this template, as it is redundant. Any thoughts on this? EpicPupper (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, @EpicPupper: {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} is a sort of "files transferred from other wikis that need review" indicator. Patrollers should be removing it, not a bot.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Jeff G., sorry, I wasn't aware of this before, as there was no documentation included in the template, and the template simply states that it is redundant. I think I'll withdraw this proposal. EpicPupper (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for concensus to deprecate {{PD-China}} and amendment on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/ChinaEdit

Due to recent copyright law amendment in mainland China, effective June 1, 2021, the protection on photographs between mainland China and Taiwan will be different. I emphasized on the new regulations.

  • Works of legal persons or organizations without legal personality, or service works enter the public domain 50 years after they were first published, or if unpublished 50 years from creation. [2020 Art. 23 Sec. 2]
    The service works (职务作品) includes (a)…, (b) service works created by staff of news presses, periodical presses, news agencies, radio and television stations, and (c)….[2020 Art. 18]
  • For photography works of natural persons whose copyright protection period expires before June 1, 2021 belong to the public domain; other photography works of natural persons enter the public domain 50 p.m.a. [2020 Art. 23 Sec. 1 & Art. 65]

I have created {{PD-PRC}} to replace {{PD-China}}, and I hereby request for concensus to deprecate {{PD-China}}. Also, an amendment on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China is needed. Thank you.

See also
  • 全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改《中华人民共和国著作权法》的决定》(Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Amending the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China), adopted November 11 2020, effective June 1 2021.
  • 中华人民共和国著作权法》(the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China), amended November 11 2020, effective June 1 2021.
  • Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/China#Copyright_law_change_in_Mainland_China, previous discussion. --痛心疾首 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Njzjz, 廣九直通車, JWilz12345, Liuxinyu970226, Hamish, Jimmy Xu, Mys 721tx, Nbfreeh, Niklitov, Stang:@Taiwania Justo, Tommyang, Wong128hk, 蟲蟲飛, Wcam, Shizhao, Jusjih: --痛心疾首 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    @痛心疾首: Why not directly modify {{PD-China}}? Also I suggest to temporary suspend the application of {{PD-PRC-audiovisual}}, audiovisual files created prior to 1923 are still copyrighted in the United States until 1 Jan 2022, created between 1923~1946 are copyrighted in US for 100 years from publication, created between 1947~1956 are copyrighted in US for 110 years from publication, and created between 1957~14 February 1972 are copyrighted until 15 Febuary 2067. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    I also need helps from other users contributed to COM:China: @Aymatth2, Majora, 4nn1l2, Techyan, Jake Low, 沈澄心, DannyS712, Samuele2002, Ameisenigel, Alno:@听风吹过的声音, Eti15TrSf, Basile Morin, Brackenheim: --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Modification to {{PD-China}} is needed, but it is used in a large amount of pages, I need concensus before I make edits. Also, after the modification, texts in this template will be too long. In comprehension, I suggest deprecate this old template and replace it with {{PD-Taiwan}} and {{PD-PRC}}. --痛心疾首 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Also, the "audiovisual work" is acturally the new name of the "[The] Cinematographic work and the work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production", not the music recording, according to the Desicion on Amending the Copyright Law (2020), article 2, section 2. {{PD-PRC-audiovisual}} seems to be duplicated with {{PD-China-film}}. --痛心疾首 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Not sure why using {{PD-old-auto}} (as suggested by Njzjz in the previous discussion) is not a feasible way to deal with this kind of problem.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps we can also use this opportunity to review and create URAA-compatible copyright templates for both Mainland China and Taiwan? After all, I think a number of Chinese works on Commons have problem with URAA (eg. this cover page of China Pictorial in 1952).
    Firstly, for most new users, using {{PD-old-auto}} or something similar seems to be much easier, but it will raise some trouble later, since sometimes there is no information to tell from which country/region it was come. Use a copyright template with its origin country/region noted might be a more feasible way to help other users avoid legal issues.
    Secondly, due to NPCSC's decision in 2020, copyright protection across the Taiwan Strait will be different. If we still use the old template and keep the false information (effective 2021-06-01) on old template and not replace it with new ones, it may lead to a misleading to other users. --痛心疾首 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    China Pictorial might not be a good example, since photos from China Pictorial are a small amount of works that may be URAA-compatible. China Pictorial is sponsored by China Foreign Languages Publishing Administration, which has a branch in USA, and this Pictorial has been published in USA for years. --痛心疾首 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: I have a question: {{PD-1996}} says "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date". Does it follow the old copyright law or the new one? If the former, no photos will go into the public domain.--Njzjz (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Njzjz: In the new law, there is a sunset provision in article 65:

    Chinese:
    摄影作品,其发表权、本法第十条第一款第五项至第十七项规定的权利的保护期在2021年6月1日前已经届满,但依据本法第二十三条第一款的规定仍在保护期内的,不再保护。

    Translation in English (unofficial):
    The term of protection of the right of publication and the rights stipulated in items 5 to 17 of the first paragraph of Article 10 of this Law for a photographic work shall expire before June 1, 2021, but those still within the term of protection in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 23 of this Law shall no longer be protected.

    Therefore, it seems that the new one is compatible with the old one. What is already in Public Domain will no longer be protected. --痛心疾首 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    What I mean is the photo released to the public domain in China on June 1 due to this new law. For example, a photo taken by a person who died in 1945, but published in 1971, is still copyrighted in China now, but will be in the public domain a month later. However, I'm not sure if it is still copyrighted in the United States.--Njzjz (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    The URAA only uses the law as it was on the URAA date (Jan 1 1996 for most countries). Any subsequent changes in a country's law has no effect on the U.S. status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @痛心疾首: This means we need to follow s:中华人民共和国著作权法_(1990年) when considering the US copyright, including the service works. --Njzjz (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I create a table below. Please help me to fill it. --Njzjz (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Published <1926 Published in 1926-1945 Published in 1946-1970 Published >1970
Died <1946 {{PD-old-auto-expired}} {{PD-old-auto-1996}} {{PD-PRC}} + {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} {{PD-PRC}} + {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}
Died in 1946-1970 {{PD-old-auto-expired}} {{PD-old-auto-1996}} {{PD-PRC}} + {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} {{PD-PRC}} + {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}
Died >1970 {{PD-PRC}} + {{PD-US-expired}} {{PD-PRC}} + {{PD-1996}} {{PD-PRC}} + {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} copyrighted
@Njzjz: This matter should and will be handled by COM:AN. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How are 50,000 penis photos "educational"?Edit

Most of us know what a human penis looks like- and we only need maybe a handful of photos of them for "educational purposes". Rather, what we have on here is sheer out rediculous to say that all of these photos are "educational" in intent, use, and purpose. We need be mindful of the SESTA-FOSTA amendments to the communications decency act, and need to make an honest effort to shield children from pornographic intnet. I would therefore submit that a special policy should be placed in effect concerning material depicting human sexual organs, so that we're not seeing so many of these images that cannot, by their sheer volume, all be intended for educational or other non-pornographic purposes. On top of that there's no current process for screening out illegal images in this regard, either. I think this is a place where we need to depart from "policy by the book" and apply some common sense and decency by scrutinizing this sort of thing a bit more. Bakertaylor28 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Bakertaylor28, I would point out a few things:
  1. Commons is not censored. Penises are part of our educational remit.
  2. We do have the guideline COM:NOPENIS, which states that we don't need to keep poor quality genital photos if they add nothing distinct
  3. If the SESTA-FOSTA amendments are a problem then the Wikimedia lawyers will point this out to us. But Nudity is not the same as pornography.
  4. There have been a number of efforts to collate new sexual media so that it can be properly categorised and culled. These were abandoned because users similar to yourself complained about the process being "collecting sexual photos for their own thrills". Whenever someone makes an attempt to be systematic they get vitriol from the anti-porn campaigners. It wasn't worth the hassle so we gave up.
  5. Most anti-porn campaigners seem to believe that anything nude is of equal worthless value, which makes it very hard to extend good faith to them. I don't doubt that there are a lot of poor quality cock photos out there, but when people target high-quality photos then they will likely be kept.
I see you have been here three hours and already launched about 100 DRs of sexual imagery. Please consider creating a single request for multiple similar files in future, it makes life much easier. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I am marking this section as resolved, we already have policies in place that prevent bad pornographic content and the person that created this section seeemed to be on an anti-pornographic campaign and I am sure that this section wasn't created to actually have a productive conversation about the educational value of photographs of human male genitalia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, the original proposer was blocked as a non-legitimate sock account and the mentioned DRs mass closed. -- (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, oddly enough, the user doesn't have their own sockouppeteer category nor are they attributed as a master's sock so I am quite suspicious of the tagging. Anyhow, their behaviour in itself is what is most dubious to me, but I am willing to welcome any anti-porn warrior with good faith as long as they are willing to understand the educational value of pornographic images on Wikimedia Commons and only express good faith rather than the censorious "Out of scope, poor quality, useless image" copypasta we have seen for years. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)