Commons talk:WikiProject Erotica/image level demo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Based on the current demonstration set-up, all of the following images are part of categories that are directly or indirectly tagged as "filter desirable for some". This means that those who wish to filter one of the images have no choice but to filter all of them.

Given this, do you think that the system is useful? Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also just run this CatScan report, which shows 1194 sub categories of Category:Sex, which ranges from Category:BDSM_humiliation to Category:Virgin_Mary_in_heraldry. It also seems to miss some, as I was running through the categories manually before thinking of the catscan tool and found Category:Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency) was a sub-category (Sex -> Sex business -> Prostitution -> Red-light districts -> Hamburg-St. Pauli) but it isn't in the CatScan report. Are you going to check whether all images in 1194+ categories are something that you subjectively think that some people might want to filter, or are you going to insist that if you don't want to see images of Autofellatio you also can't see images of chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the Czech Republic? Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

heh! dunno (yet!) - any ideas you've got about sensible ways to achieve the stated aims of such a system would be most welcome! Also, do you have any idea why the virgin mary chapels cat is within 'sex'? - seems odd to me! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
ps. - I listed 5 categories for the demonstration - do you only have objections to the one? - if so, we're 80% on target :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The Virgin Mary categories are sub-categories of Category:Chastity which is a sub-category of Category:Sex, both of which seem logical to me.
Regarding the other categories:
As for "Sensible ways to achieve the stated aims of such a system", well that depends which system you are talking about. If you mean "Descriptive image tagging" which is what it says at the top of the page - this isn't such a system, you need to work on an individual image level tagging either as a single string (e.g. for File:Creampie.jpg "close-up photograph of vaginal intercourse between a white adult human male wearing red underwear and an white adult human female with uncovered unshaven pubic hair. Semen is visible around where the penis enters the vagina") or tag everything in the image for a system where people check either tags or combinations of tags they don't want (e.g. for the same image: "photograph, white male, white female, vaginal intercourse, close-up, unshaven female genitals, semen, red male underwear, human penis, human vagina" and possibly others).
If you are referring to the aims of the category tagging, then I am of the opinion that such broad categories are worse than useless as they can never be any of objective, culturally neutral or reliable. If you reorganised each category into sub-categories of homogeneous images (e.g. rather than Category:Fellatio you had Category:Line drawings of clothed adult females performing fellatio on naked adult males, Category:Close-up photographs of naked adult males performing fellatio on partially-clothed adolescent males during group sex, Category:Computer render illustrations of multiple clothed adolescent and adult females performing fellatio on a single naked adult male, Category:Photographs of images of Ancient Greek pottery showing illustrations of naked adult males performing fellatio on naked adult males; and set the system so that sub-categories do not inherit the tags of their parent categories, then you would get somewhere. However, even if categorisation like this were practical to implement, it would be widely opposed as massive over-categorisation.
To be clear, I'm not against the principle of letter people choose which images they do and don't want to see, I just believe that such a system is unworkable as you envisage it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
okey dokey - I think you've explained your position pretty well :-) - I have a cunning plan for a better system (reduce false positives etc.) and will drop you a note for feedback when it's a bit further on :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

take a look[edit]

see Category:FilterDemo for a demo of some 35 images which I think should probably be tagged as 'filter desirable' - feedback? any false positives? I think we're getting somewhere! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Idea sucks, implementation is worse. You don't have support for this. Reread the discussion, especially the part about not polluting our images (which you just did with your template). I removed the template spam. Multichill (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
okey dokey - I've ammended the project page to reflect the reality that efforts to demonstrate using templates etc. aren't appropraite (not an opinion I share, but thems the rubs) - my reading of the various threads is that various folk popped up and said 'it'll never work, it cannot work, it's impossible etc. etc.' - I felt it was appropriate to try and show them something with some functionality, but I'll have to figure out how without demonstration..... Privatemusings (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here are a set of 35 images that should be tagged as "filter desirable for some", if such a tag is used:
Although they are not all erotica, they are all equally worthy of the tag "filter desirable by some" Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

< I don't think I'd tag many (or any really!) under 'flickr' type guidelines - would you? - perhaps the tag is inappropriately named? Maybe we can come up with something better :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would you not tag any of those as "filter desirable by some", given that they are all images that are as equally offensive to at least some people as the images in the gallery discussed below? Why are your personal opinions significant? Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Image level demo gallery[edit]

take a look at Commons:Wikiproject:Erotica/image_level_demo/Gallery for an example collection which all features photographs of sexual activity - is that a better title do you think? - and would you agree that these images have something in common, and are indeed 'sexual content'? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All the images in that gallery do show sexual activity, except File:A American lady rear view.JPG (which might or might not be sexual), as is commonly understood in my culture (white middle class England), but File:Blonde teenie sucking.jpg is not a photograph, so your description is not accurate.
They are just a subset of all the images on commons that fit under the label "sexual content" (even assuming that a monoculutural and thus inherently biased definition is taken).
As the images represent a variety of types of sexual activity, it is not really that useful as the basis for filtering images though (which there is no evidence is actually wanted). For example File:Fellatio by sub.jpg is a very different image to File:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png and many users will want to be able to choose whether one or both is displayed rather than a one-size fits all solution.
Were a more neutral, global definition of "sexual content" used, then it would be even less useful as for filtering. See the many, many examples I've posted of various images that show "sexual content".
Also, your description of the gallery "This Gallery is the collection of images currently proposed as being suitable for being tagged for filtering to allow network owners and administrators to restrict access based on their desires (for example to allow access to commons in schools etc.)" is meaningless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
re: 'All the images in that gallery do show sexual activity' - I'm really pleased to be finding some common ground :-) - and I take your point about the 'rear view' image, it is different to the others. I think if we can describe the nature of the sexual activity in that gallery (perhaps it's as simple as 'media depicting sexual activity'?) then we'll have a better definition for the rather vague (meaningless in your terms) title - what do you think of 'media depicting sexual activity'? - is there something better to describe what the images in the gallery have in common, that the above do not? Privatemusings (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, any description including the phrase "sexual activity" is useless until you can come up with a neutral, culturally independent definition of "sexual activity" (I've lost count of how many times I've explained this now). "Media depicting activities usually regarded as sexual by contemporary dominant white middle class British and North American culture of the early 2010s" is perhaps the best fit. While there will be overlap with other cultures and time periods, none are going to match 100% once you get away from the handful of clear images this gallery contains, particularly when you start getting to edge cases. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)