Category:People with balls, (Not what you think. Then again...) Options

[carbuncle]

Remember when we all made fun of the ridiculous Commons categories containing amateur porn? Greg Kohs also did a story on it with a somewhat gratuitous headline ("Wikipedia forcing nudity and sex on all readers"). It seems like things have progressed a little bit on Commons.

In the request to delete "Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes", there is a discussion between TwoWings and someone called Saibo. Now, both of them agree that it is important to have images of people masturbating with electric toothbrushes on Commons, but Saibo believes that they should be in "Category:Toothbrushes". TwoWings has apparently listened to some of the discussion here and elsewhere and decided that the best approach is to put the images in sub categories. That way, when you open up, say, Category:People with balls, you aren't immediately shown the image of a woman masturbating with a child's bouncing ball. To see it, you have to first click on Category:Nude or partially nude people with balls and then on Category:Nude or partially nude people with jumping balls to see it.

While this seems a bit, um, overly specific, it does actually accomplish the goal of preventing people from being exposed to explicit images when they aren't looking for them.

[I forgot to link to the discussion - fixed now]

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Thu 1st December 2011, 5:56pm

[thekohser]

Wow, progress. I'll believe when they've handled Category:The Muppets in a similar fashion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

That way, when you open up, say, Category:People with balls, you aren't immediately shown the image of a woman masturbating with a child's bouncing ball. To see it, you have to first click on Category:Nude or partially nude people with balls and then on Category:Nude or partially nude people with jumping balls to see it.

And of course, they will also be forced to see a smug photo of Jimbo with the caption, "If everyone reading this donated $5, our fundraiser would be over today." Somehow the juxtaposition of the two images is particularly compelling.

[carbuncle]

A proposal has come out of the category deletion discussion:

Proposed addition regarding categories

I suggest adding something in this direction:

Categorisation

Categorisation is essential to ensure that Commons content can be used effectively by end users. When it comes to nudity, we can consider the needs of four groups of users:

1. Users who are looking for nudity (for the educational purposes of COM:SCOPE), and wish to easily find nudity, organised in a clear nudity category tree
2. Users who are not looking for nudity, but might find it useful if they happen to find it
3. Users who are not looking for nudity, and have no use for it if they happen to find it
4. Users who are not looking for nudity, and may be put off from further using Commons to find their desired content, if they find nudity in locations it is entirely unexpected.[1]

Group 1 are best served by a nudity category tree which adequately categorises nudity content, allowing them to focus on it
Group 4 are best served by a nudity category tree which does not merely add nudity categories to nudity content, but where there is overlap with non-nudity category trees, separates them out. The principle of avoiding over-categorization will often achieve this objective anyway, if the needs of Group 1 are already served.
Group 3 is best served by the same approach as Group 4 - to them nudity is merely clutter in their search, in the same way as miscategorisation.
Group 2 is the only special case. They can be served by ensuring that the nudity category tree, where it overlaps with non-nudity category trees, is not firewalled off, but interlinked in the usual way (subcategories). If nudity may be of unexpected use to them, they can effectively investigate this through those subcategories.

In sum, nudity content which overlaps with non-nudity category trees should be categorised according to the twin principles of principle of least astonishment and principle of usefulness. For example, the average user would be surprised to find nudity in a "muppets" category, and it is highly unlikely the average user looking at the category is looking for nude images involving muppets. Therefore, such images should be separated out in a way which both minimises surprise and maximises ease of finding for those users actually looking for such pictures. Some form of nude subcategory, properly placed in the muppets category tree and in the nudity category tree, is an effective compromise that meets everyone's needs (with perhaps a partial exception of Group 4, who may to some extent object even to such subcategories).

↑ The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation explicitly elevated the "principle of least astonishment" as applied to categories of media files in its controversial content Board resolution (foundation:Resolution:Controversial content): "We urge the Commons community to continue to practice rigorous active curation of content, including applying appropriate categorization, removing media that does not meet existing policies and guidelines for inclusion, and actively commissioning media that is deemed needed but missing. We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement."

Rd232 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima - you said your lines, now stay out of it, you are likely to drive away reasonable voices.

[Ottava]

Ottava Rima - you said your lines, now stay out of it, you are likely to drive away reasonable voices.

I don't think you grasp what Commons is - there is no such thing as reason or reasonable over there.

[lilburne]

Ottava Rima - you said your lines, now stay out of it, you are likely to drive away reasonable voices.

I don't think you grasp what Commons is - there is no such thing as reason or reasonable over there.

MOAR Piling in, Ottava, MOAR Piling in.

[Abd]

Ottava Rima - you said your lines, now stay out of it, you are likely to drive away reasonable voices.

I don't think you grasp what Commons is - there is no such thing as reason or reasonable over there.

What we are is what we see, what we are not, we cannot see.

I was shocked, myself, to see the comment from RD232. Sanity at Commons? Who'd a thunk it? I've been busy in Real Life, or, more accurately, taking care of business that I neglected for way too long, but, hey, I think I'll look at that discussion. I'm not blocked on Commons. Yet.
----

Okay, I looked. Functional discussion, though tending, normal wiki-style, to become convoluted, though, were I In Charge, I'd collapse most side-comments (i.e., threaded discussion of comments), which make the page Forbidding. Funny that I'm Mr. Wall-o-Text ™, but wall of text is what the community routinely creates. Still, it's worth reading Ottava running his number, completely standard, but a total distraction from the topic at hand, the category of an image of a woman masturbating with a toothbrush.

Ottava makes a great point, though. How do we know that this is an image of a woman masturbating with a toothbrush? After all, it's a still. Maybe she's just cleaning the toothbrush. Maybe she's scratching an itch. Maybe she likes the taste, or someone else does. Maybe she's just posing for the camera. In fact, if this were a video, how would we know that she was actually masturbating and not just pretending. Whatever.

And then it's pointed out to Ottava that the photo is "an 'own work' image called File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg, which the uploader gave the caption "masturbating with electric toothbrush" (sic)[3]. On what basis do you claim that the uploader did not intend for the image to represent "masturbating with a toothbrush"?

Ottava always has a response. "The uploader is someone who cannot be trusted." That's positively brilliant!

He's right. Of course, he's right about every anonymous user, but why be shy about bringing that up? How do we know that the woman is really masturbating? We can't even say "Woman allegedly masturbating," because, after all, OR, BLP, and we can't attribute the allegation to anyone except an anonymous editor. Wait! How do we know that the woman is living? How do we know that this is a woman and that's a toothbrush? Where is the Reliable Source?

As usual, Ottava brings up points that nobody else would even dream of. That's why he'll be banned. Original thinker. Of a particular kind.

Dedicated to the Holy, Inviolable Principle of Ottava is Always Right. Q.E.D.

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 6th December 2011, 1:41pm

[EricBarbour]

Wow, progress. I'll believe when they've handled Category:The Muppets in a similar fashion.

Funny you should mention that.

There's also crotchless clothing, which contains only one subcategory, which contains only one subcategory, which contains 2 photos.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 6th December 2011, 8:12pm

[The Joy]

Wow, progress. I'll believe when they've handled Category:The Muppets in a similar fashion.

Funny you should mention that.

There's also crotchless clothing, which contains only one subcategory, which contains only one subcategory, which contains 2 photos.

FloNight created the category!?!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

[The Joy]

Category: Children Buttocks

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Children_buttocks



Edit: Nude cooking

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_cooking

And I don't like the picture of the woman appearing to grab the man's weenie.

[Alison]

FloNight created the category!?!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&action=history

Well, I don't know quite what's going on there, but FloNight is massively busy dealing with porn on Commons. Porn and little else. And if you look at our good friend TwoWings' talk page, you can see she's been busy listing his porn stash for deletion

And the barnstar on his page here kinda clarifies things further;

This edit made my day [2] :-D. I truly appreciate you helping to categorize nudes and sexually provocative images so that people can find images specific to their search without being exposed to images that they would not anticipate. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

... fair enough, I guess.

Edit: Nude cooking

Buh-but - that's educational!! Within scope!!

And I don't like the picture of the woman appearing to grab the man's weenie.

[carbuncle]

Well, I don't know quite what's going on there, but FloNight is massively busy dealing with porn on Commons. Porn and little else. And if you look at our good friend TwoWings' talk page, you can see she's been busy listing his porn stash for deletion

Of course you know that TwoWings obession with Commons porn is actually his way of protecting children:

Well, again, we have to respect the diversity of people and thinking. It's the best way to struggle against censorship on Commons.
Another thing : it's easy, in a way, to judge people who want to protect youngsters from nude pics. I agree that there's some exagerations and that many parents create phobias with such "morals". But any psychologist would tell you that it's not a question of moral if you show sex/porn pictures to young children. I have a baby girl and even if I deeply consider I won't hide nudity from her, I'll protect her from some explicit/sexualized pictures (e.g. pics like the one with the toothbrush or the one with the woman on the jumping ball). It's also easy to say "let's show nudity" without thinking of the reality of life. As a teacher, I would not work with Commons website with my classes because I know what kind of behaviours or conflicts I would see among my students if they found nude pictures (and even worse if it's more about sex, masturbation, etc). I just know it because it's already difficult sometimes with extracts of movies or paintings ! I regret that reality (I'm actually very angry against those stupid behaviours each time I'm confronted to them) but I have to deal with it. Therefore having tenets is one thing, dealing with reality is another thing ! That's why we sometimes need consensual solutions, even if they're not optimal. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[jd turk]

In the request to delete "Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes"...

That page needs to be linked on every single Wikipedia appeal for money. Here's what your cash is responsible for, folks.

[cookiehead]

One must always brush before bed.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mas..._toothbrush.jpg

[radek]

I keep clicking on this thread for the wrong reasons. Is this a Commons only cat or is there a similar one on Wikipedia? If the latter, then I might go and put Malleus in it for yuk yuks.