Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (should any non-FREE images be included, they should be changed to links). — xaosflux Talk 06:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn
Speedy deletion (after an MfD consensus to keep) was overturned at Deletion review and is now back for reconsideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. Note: As the name of the page implies, the page is NSFW. ~ trialsanderrors 04:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We've been through this many times before, and the consensus (with which I agree) has always been to keep these pages. So long as all of the images are free-use, this is not a violation of any WP policies regarding the userspace. WP is uncensored, and if this is what somebody wants on a subpage of their userpage, then let it be so. -- Kicking222 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if the images are not used in any articles, keep if they are. Wikipedia is not a free web host for galleries of non-Wikipedia-related images. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 06:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any policy violations here, and this is just another userspace (index) gallery, which is allowed. This one just has a slighly more controversial topic. If it were 'WikiCars' instead of 'WikiPorn', it wouldn't even be listed here? Edokter 13:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as long as all images are free use. --- RockMFR 17:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep, violates no policy, has an encyclopedic purpose (as an index of related images). The "used in no articles" claim is a red herring, because they're commons images, and we have indices like those for Gray's Anatomy images that haven't had articles created for them yet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- If they're on commons though, wouldn't they already have an associated gallery page, making this userspace duplicate unnecessary? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Userspace galleries here have different policies and purposes so they're hardly redundant with commons galleries. Like someone said, I could make a gallery of cool cars in my userspace, which is kind of POV and OR and inappropriate for a commons page, but acceptable for a user gallery (to organize pictures of cars I want to create articles about, for example). the connection between these images is too tenuous for a commons gallery, but it serves a purpose for those browsing it--an index to a particular side of our content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- If they're on commons though, wouldn't they already have an associated gallery page, making this userspace duplicate unnecessary? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. 1ne 22:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. You need to supply a rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm well aware it isn't a vote. I deleted it in the first place. It violates WP:USER. That's my rationale. Once again, I'm well aware it isn't a vote. 1ne 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- What part of WP:USER do you feel this violates? Also, WP:USER is a guideline, not policy. VegaDark 09:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here's what I feel it violates; please read WP:USER. [1] 1ne 14:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did read it. And I reread that section just now, and I still see nothing that this violates, unless you consider this "Other non-encyclopedic material" which is a matter of opinion. VegaDark 19:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Demonstrate how a gallery of porn is encyclopedic. 1ne 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- For all we know, it is being used as a watchlist. Or it could be used to determine what sexual images we don't yet have pictures for, in an attempt to get more images for Wikipedia. Or, it could be used for quick access to revert vandalism on them as they are all high risk for vandalism. It could be used as an attempt to determine which of our porn-related images need improvement or replacements. There are several encyclopedic uses possible for such a gallery. VegaDark 05:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Demonstrate how a gallery of porn is encyclopedic. 1ne 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did read it. And I reread that section just now, and I still see nothing that this violates, unless you consider this "Other non-encyclopedic material" which is a matter of opinion. VegaDark 19:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here's what I feel it violates; please read WP:USER. [1] 1ne 14:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- What part of WP:USER do you feel this violates? Also, WP:USER is a guideline, not policy. VegaDark 09:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm well aware it isn't a vote. I deleted it in the first place. It violates WP:USER. That's my rationale. Once again, I'm well aware it isn't a vote. 1ne 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. You need to supply a rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Violates no policy, Wikipedia is not censored... (I came close to violating WP:POINT by being tempted to write "Keep per 1ne") CharonX/talk 02:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I could swear I've seen this discussion before. Look it's really simple: Wikipedia is not censored which is why we have these images at all, but Wikipedia is also not a pornsite for its users. See WP:USER. While there might be applications for a non-article space gallery of nude images (for vandalism detection applications, for example), there is no purpose for a userspace page to host pornography which aligns with the mission of the project and the purposes we provide userpages for. There is plenty of free hosting out there.. and the content is free. Set up your own site and stop taking our bandwidth for your jerk-off fodder. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear above, per the PROTECT Act of 2003 and Title 18 USC section 2257, information providers (thats Wikimedia) who host pornographic (thats the page under discussion) content have stringent requirements for documenting things like the age of the models. Failure to maintain proper documentation will result in stiff fines. We don't normally have to worry about this because we use images of nudity and sexuality for clinical educational purposes, not erotic ones. Jimbo Wales has already stated (don't make me search for the cite, please!) that the Foundation is both unwilling and unable to maintain such records and thus the use of foundation resources for non-educational pornographic resources can not be permitted even if weren't otherwise a terrible idea and against our policy. --Gmaxwell 05:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Calling it porn doesn't make it porn. Just because someone likes to look at the pictures doesn't make them inappropriate. We have galleries of pretty pictures--the wallpaper categories for example--that serve no purpose beyond collecting images people will want to look at that satisfy certain criteria. These images are on wikipedia regardless, and if your objection is to their presence, you should have them deleted, instead of a gallery that simply provides an easy reference to do with them as you will (even list them for deletion!). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Calling it porn makes in nearly impossible to convince either the general public or a court that the intent of the page isn't to further prurient interests. US requirement for records keeping make no allowance for the sort of newage open-mindness required to claim "Oh, it's naked people and sex.. and we call it porn but it's really something else". Come on, refusing to allow users to host pornsites in userspace isn't censorship of the encyclopedia. If you could show me any other userspace gallery which is of limited value to the maintenance and operation of Wikipedia and such maximal interest to the outside world, I'd suggest the be removed too. --Gmaxwell 11:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Calling it porn doesn't make it porn. Just because someone likes to look at the pictures doesn't make them inappropriate. We have galleries of pretty pictures--the wallpaper categories for example--that serve no purpose beyond collecting images people will want to look at that satisfy certain criteria. These images are on wikipedia regardless, and if your objection is to their presence, you should have them deleted, instead of a gallery that simply provides an easy reference to do with them as you will (even list them for deletion!). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear above, per the PROTECT Act of 2003 and Title 18 USC section 2257, information providers (thats Wikimedia) who host pornographic (thats the page under discussion) content have stringent requirements for documenting things like the age of the models. Failure to maintain proper documentation will result in stiff fines. We don't normally have to worry about this because we use images of nudity and sexuality for clinical educational purposes, not erotic ones. Jimbo Wales has already stated (don't make me search for the cite, please!) that the Foundation is both unwilling and unable to maintain such records and thus the use of foundation resources for non-educational pornographic resources can not be permitted even if weren't otherwise a terrible idea and against our policy. --Gmaxwell 05:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Does not violate policy, I see no need to delete this. VegaDark 09:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per above, though I would personally prefer it if users didn't have subpages like this. Dar-Ape 21:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Gmaxwell. Honestly, things like this don't do a lot to give us a good name. Wikipedia is not censored for children, but that doesn't mean that we need lots of sex pictures outside of encyclopedic space. There's a certain degree of appropriateness. And that really goes for any kind of images. If you're showing off images you uploaded, ok. Heck, I do that - my image contributions are displayed on my user page. If you are using them as a pseudo-watchlist, ok. If you have a sandbox space for the purpose of creating an article where you are listing images that you plan to add to an article, ok. But userspace isn't free webhosting. Permanent image galleries "just because I can", particularly those that aren't the kind of images you would show off in polite society, just don't really do anything but take up space. BigDT 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument is still entirely contingent on your objections to the sexual content of the images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- He has objections to the sexual content? How can you tell? --Gmaxwell 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- So? We're not talking about what's appropriate in article space - we're talking about user space. BigDT 15:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument is still entirely contingent on your objections to the sexual content of the images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There's nothing wrong with this page except puritans who dislike the content. The constant deletion arguments over it are disruptive but that disruption is caused by those bitching about it, not the existence of it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Where are these 'puritans' of which you speak. I'm not seeing anyone above call themselves one. --Gmaxwell 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Rename I'm not convinced that this page is serving an encyclopedic purpose, or that it's worth all of this trouble, but I can at least see some grounds on which it might serve such a purpose, so I won't !vote delete. Naming it "WikiPorn", though, is just a hideously bad idea -- it seems almost designed to cause controversy. Move the content somewhere else, with a more encyclopedic name, and it'd cause fewer problems, I'd bet. Shimeru 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Clarification This is also not a keep !vote; I'm neutral on that subject. Merely a recommendation if it's kept. Shimeru 02:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I support the rename if it's kept, if that wasn't obvious enough from my prior comments. --Gmaxwell 13:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Any suggestions for a new name? WikiPr0n? Edokter 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hilarious. But perhaps a name that makes it sound more like something that's useful to the project, and less like free porn hosting? Hard to suggest anything specific without knowing what purpose it's meant to fulfill, but something starting "Gallery of" or "Images related to" or "Index of" would be a start. Shimeru 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep All the pictures in that gallery are aready part of Wikipedia - there's nothing wrong with bringing them all together. American prudery is weird... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, anyway the images are all free use and have no copyright problems. Slightly harmless, mainly the name disturbs some. Terence Ong 08:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
