Child erotica Options

[carbuncle]

A coincidental meeting of some of popular WR themes and characters?

Stillwaterising, known for some strong opions about the recent porn deletions on Commons and for obessively polishing the bio of professional deepthroat enthusiast Heather Harmon, has added an image of an adult female model to Child erotica. That image comes from the uploads of the prolific Commons porn uploader Max Rebo Band.

I have no good explanation for why Stillwaterising would be adding a picture of an adult female -- she is a Suicide Girls model, so at least 18 -- to an article about "child" erotica.

[Somey]

I was under the impression that Mr. Stillwaterising was one of those people who, shall we say, really really enjoys online porn (if not porn in general) and is willing to make whatever efforts or arguments are necessary to protect it, even if it means getting heavily involved with Wikipedia. I've looked at his contribution history and I suppose it could be said that he actually does want to keep a lid on child porn (at least the more blatant stuff), if only as a way to ensure the continued availability (if not growth) of adult porn. However, since he and the other WP'ers have largely failed in keeping said lid on, he's now trying to reconcile his past porn advocacy with recent arguments for morally responsible behavior WRT child-abuse imagery.

Am I at least in the ballpark here? I would agree that in his case, what might have been a "moral compass" does seem to have been replaced with a set of US legal citations, but then again, that's probably better than nothing.

Either way, the solution to this (if there is one) is probably not to find more subjects to write about that can potentially be illustrated with "erotic" images of underaged individuals, even if those articles are ostensibly about the abusive nature of such things...?

[HRIP7]

I was under the impression that Mr. Stillwaterising was one of those people who, shall we say, really really enjoys online porn (if not porn in general) and is willing to make whatever efforts or arguments are necessary to protect it, even if it means getting heavily involved with Wikipedia. I've looked at his contribution history and I suppose it could be said that he actually does want to keep a lid on child porn (at least the more blatant stuff), if only as a way to ensure the continued availability (if not growth) of adult porn. However, since he and the other WP'ers have largely failed in keeping said lid on, he's now trying to reconcile his past porn advocacy with recent arguments for morally responsible behavior WRT child-abuse imagery.

Am I at least in the ballpark here? I would agree that in his case, what might have been a "moral compass" does seem to have been replaced with a set of US legal citations, but then again, that's probably better than nothing.

Either way, the solution to this (if there is one) is probably not to find more subjects to write about that can potentially be illustrated with "erotic" images of underaged individuals, even if those articles are ostensibly about the abusive nature of such things...?

Hmm, I have to say that judging by a few deletion discussions, his work at the COM:SEX draft sexual content policy for Commons, as well as posts to the Foundation list, it would be ludicrous to accuse Stillwaterising of being an advocate for the presence of any kind of gratuitous sexual imagery on Commons, or in Wikipedia. Do him the courtesy of spending an hour looking at his Commons contributions, or even better, ask Max Rebo Band for his opinion on Stillwaterising.

Stillwaterising also happens to be the editor who introduced the reference to the Dost test (T-H-L-K-D) in the proposed Sexual content policy. Without that addition, there would have been nothing in the draft policy to prevent anyone uploading an image of an actual 12-year-old in that pose and attire.

I too am a little puzzled that he introduced the image, which was discussed at the COM:SEX talk page, into this article. I can only think that it was a case of so many people telling us that photos of women with small breasts are fine and that the image was fine on Commons that he tried to find an "educational use" for it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[Somey]

Hmm, I have to say that judging by a few deletion discussions, his work at the COM:SEX draft sexual content policy for Commons, as well as posts to the Foundation list, it would be ludicrous to accuse Stillwaterising of being an advocate for the presence of any kind of gratuitous sexual imagery on Commons, or in Wikipedia. Do him the courtesy of spending an hour looking at his Commons contributions...

So you don't think the usual 20-30 minutes was enough? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I mean, taking Commons:Sexual Content as the primary example, this series of diffs (his first on the page, which had been started by Privatemusings) is clearly an attempt to water down the proposal in accordance with US-based legal strictures, which are obviously a lower standard than the kind of morality-based criteria that you'd find in just about any traditionally-published encyclopedia (unless it's an encyclopedia of porn, of course).

Anyway, I don't believe I said that he specifically advocated the inclusion of "gratuitous" pornographic content... I guess I'm just saying that he's arguing the pro-porn position by invoking US law in such a way as to lower the inclusion standards that were originally proposed. I'm just guessing about the "really really likes porn" part, but let's face it, that's a common characteristic of internet denizens, and not a crime either (in the vast majority of cases at least). I could claim that he's "wikilawyering" or something to that effect, but that term isn't normally used to describe what he's actually been doing. (Also, as always bear in mind that if it weren't for the lack of disclaimers and content-filtering META tags, not to mention the presence of child admins in general, I might be largely on his side in this particular controversy.)

As for the Deletion Review votes, I'm of two minds about that... True, he did vote to delete quite a number of images, but if you ask me, a lot of those votes were just no-brainers - the quality of those images as pornography was simply terrible. This one (NSFW), for example, is just worthless, both as a depiction of the act in question and as erotica or a means of titillation. If a professional porn photographer tried to pass photos (hey, more alliteration!) like that off as "erotica," he or she would be out of business in no time at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

All in all, I'm trying to take a middle ground here - I don't think he's as much of a pornmonger as some of the people on Commons, but in some ways his intelligence and rationality about it just makes him a much more effective obstacle to imposing morality-based standards. I'm sure my saying that will only encourage him, but either way, let's not try to paint him as one of the responsible ones - cleverness with words and a knowledge of US case law don't confer a sense of moral responsibility on anybody. (To some extent, the exact opposite may be true!)

I think the answers are trivially obvious, and to the extent that SWR is concerned only with the legality of the picture, and not the greater question of why any picture at all, they seem to miss the boat. In fact, this illustrates one of the many recognized failings of the WP model, and I don't think I need to draw everyone a picture.

Well, thanks for stating in one paragraph what took me four paragraphs, but he's really only "missing the boat" with respect to the general public (or at least most of us here on WR). As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he's building the damn boat.