Wikipedia:Sexual content

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

Wikipedia is not censored, which in practice means that we permit Sexual content in many areas. This proposal aims to work towards establishing a broad community consensus on what types of images serve the project well in which contexts, and where exactly we 'set the bar' on Sexual content on Wikipedia.

For many reasons, it is sensible to apply rigour in establishing the usefulness of material broadly construed as 'sexual content' within Wikipedia. Any material which serves an encyclopedic purpose should be preserved. In keeping with our policies on 'orphaned images', material which is not used in any Wikipedia article, should be proposed for deletion, and an administrator will complete the deletion following a 5 day period.

Important related information

Our policy on censorship is based on the principle that we don't omit anything from the encyclopedia to protect the readers. This proposal is based on the idea that we might voluntarily choose to develop a clear set of standards relating to sexual content on Wikipedia.

policy / internal 'Wikipedia' pages

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not Censored
WP:IMAGE - our Image content guidelines
WP:IUP - our Image use policy
MediaWiki:Bad image list - A list of images restricted to specific usage (see below)

pages detailing external considerations

Personality rights - the legal rights of individuals aside from copyright considerations

Current Practice

'Wikipedia is not censored' - part of our guide to what Wikipedia isn't is one of the strongest planks of our current policy in this area. Broadly speaking, the outcome is a 'case by case' approach, which has strengths and weaknesses. Many explicit images are also restricted using the 'bad image list';

The MediaWiki:Bad image list

We currently have a list of images which have been used for disruption, or where there is sufficient similarity to an existing 'bad image' that there is a substantial likelihood that the image will be used for disruption. In practice, this list is strongly geared towards explicit sexual content.

In some ways, this represents a kind of policy for explicit images, although is essentially reactive as oppose to proactive, and there may be problems such as scalability (the list recommends a size of 10K or less). Further, inclusion on the list seems somewhat arbitrary, with unclear specific criteria aside from the general prevalence of sexual content - there is much sexual content of a similar nature to some of the images on this list not currently listed. Please feel free to work up a proposal below for how we might utilise this technical method of restriction image use in regard to sexual content on Wikipedia.

Proposal 1 - Sexual content restricted to article space

Sexual content is restricted to article space. Hyperlinking to such material is acceptable.

Proposal 2 - A sexual content flag

The community could support the creation of a 'sexual content flag' - which allows users to choose whether or not explicit content (perhaps judged loosely by the 'safe for work' bar) will appear. This may be achievable through some implementation of the flagged revisions extension, or require further development.

If such a flag were technically feasible, then it may further be sensible to develop a policy surrounding the terms of use - for example inviting users to confirm that they are of a certain age, and that certain material is legal in their jurisdiction etc. - this is similar to the approach taken at Flickr for example.

Proposal 3 - Model ages, releases, and personality rights

It is self-evidently responsible to apply particular rigour in establishing model release, and the age of models in all sexual content. The community may work on proposals to increase confidence that all images are legal, and appropriately released. The uploader, and those wishing retain the image for an encyclopedic purpose, should endeavor to provide some evidence that the content is suitable for inclusion.

Current System

Assume good faith of uploader - a trust based system. Little information outside licensing currently required or invited to be submitted

Additional Measures

Ask uploaders to confirm the age of models in media containing sexual content
Integrate the OTRS system to allow some evidence to be submitted
Delete Sexual content where no information concerning model ages and release is present
Clarify existing practice in terms of explicit imagery - what material is desirable, what material is less useful etc.

Further Proposals

Please feel free to use this space, and the talk page, to develop ideas and further policy work in this area.