Forum:Image appropriateness issue

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Image appropriateness issue

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

I'd like to get a community consensus and/or a mod ruling on the issue at Talk:Sex#Image, specifically the use of File:Sex.jpg and the appropriateness of NSFW screenshots to this wiki. What do you think? — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 21:14, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

No sex shots, no snuff shots. Boblipton 21:44, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what we're discussing, here

As I've already indicated at Talk:Sex, I'm fine with the image. I certainly don't agree with Boblipton's black and white approach. To my mind, anything which occurs in a licensed narrative is completely fair game for this wiki. It's not our job to censor what has gone on in the DWU. Our only policy on the matter currently reads:

Sexual imagery should be strictly limited to that which actually occurs within the narratives of the DWU. Think carefully if potentially offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page.our image use policy

Is that image really offensive? I mean, what do we have for nudity there? A bit of ass crack? C'mon — it's 2011. Who hasn't seen ass crack at the local supermarket? Are we really that unfamiliar girls wearing low-rise jeans? Have none of us been to a beach?

More to the point, the image is actually of narrative significance, and should be on the ep page and both characters' character pages, as well. It is a key point of Miracle Day that they had sex. Otherwise, his having to film her death has no particular emotional resonance.

I admit that the policy says that discussions on the appropriateness of imagery are invited. But this is straight out of an episode. It's not like we're talking Dalek porn or Katy Manning's Dalek shoot. Hell, Nicola Bryant's showing more cleavage in Planet of Fire than Arlene Tur is in this shot.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 23:04:08 Tue 13 Sep 2011 

It's not that I personally find the image offensive, I don't. But I do think it crosses the line of what's usually considered SFW on a public website with an unrestricted userbase. If we want to go that route that's fine, if we don't that's fine too, but before the issue gets out of hand in either direction (since there are certainly more explicit images to be found in canon) I think we should have a solid consensus and official policy in place about such things. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 04:23, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise: Would it make everyone happy if there were a different shot from the same scene that didn't display ass crack? Or even a cropped version of the same photo? I think it would still represent "sex in the Whoniverse" just as well.

For a real-world article that actually talks about the editing of the sex scenes for the Starz vs. BBC releases (like the Wikipedia article on Dead of Night), that image might be would fighting for, but I don't know if it is here. --70.36.140.19 05:30, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the photo now would be avoiding the issue, but I really think talking it out and deciding as a community where we stand on the issue would be a lot more helpful to the wiki in the long run. If we don't get a consensus together now it'd just have to be dealt with all over again when the next borderline pic comes up. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 13:31, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the image.

SFW…? Okay…it might be odd to find the pic of Rex and Vera shagging on a totally unrelated article, but it's on the Sex article, exactly what are you expecting to find on the article? It's illustrating the subject matter.

Wikipedia is also publicly accessible and unrestricted and you can find far more NSFW shots there than you ever could here.

This was how it was broadcast in the US, Canada and Australia, and how it will be for the home release in the UK. This isn't an unrelated image it appears within the narrative.

If we start censoring then really what's the point of adding any potentially "offensive" content to the wiki? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:09, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

This pic has just celebrated its two year anniversary on this site.

I see nothing wrong with the image, it's not like they're showing any of their nudeness. --Revan\Talk 14:13, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Sex happens in the DWU. As long as we report or picture that which actually occurred, it's not salacious. I'm curious though why this imagery has been singled out for discussion, rather than, say, the Katy Manning stuff. We've had nipple showing at Katy Manning for just over two years, and no one batted an eyelash. But here, where there's actual narrative significance to the nudity, we gotta have a big pow-wow. I honestly don't understand any cause for concern. I mean, at this point, is anyone really expecting for there to be another year of Torchwood and for that year to provide more graphic images than this one?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 05:25:06 Thu 15 Sep 2011 

I wasn't particularly trying to "single out" this image, it just happens to be this image that sparked my interest in the wider issue of nudity on this wiki. Since the mods seem to be in agreement, perhaps someone could add a sentence or two to Tardis:image use policy to note that such things are allowed where relevant?

As for more graphic things coming up in the future, there's full-frontal nudity of Captain Jack and some human-shaped Zygons in canon already. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 19:29, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, the already-quoted bit of the image use policy doesn't allow the image? You think the language could be clearer? If you have any suggestions for clarity, I'd be interested in hearing them. I've got to rewrite anyway, if only to cite this discussion. Might as well improve the overall clarity, while I'm at it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 11:24:29 Fri 16 Sep 2011 

Perhaps just editing that first sentence to "Sexual imagery and nudity should be strictly limited to that which actually occurs within the narratives of the DWU" would be enough to cover (sorry) the issue, since not all nudity is sexual imagery. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 13:21, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

Try telling a thirteen year old boy that. Boblipton 14:26, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

I seriously can not see what the problem is. There is much more graphic imagery on Wikipedia, which I can confidently assume has more people-who'd-be-offended-by-that-sort-of-thing using it than this wiki. Take a look at this image from Suicide bomber (The New World). It is pretty violent and I testify against anyone who'd say they'd prefer to look at that than a bit of Katy Manning's tits or Arlene Tur's ass. But the image of the suicide bomber has every right to be on this wiki, as do the other two images. The preceding comment was made by Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 01:05, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Is this really less discomforting than the other two images?

The problem with nudity is that what is offensive to some isn't offensive to others. Considering that that Doctor Who isn't heavily based on sex, I don't see a why it's necessary. Even Torchwood which is adult oriented isn't so sexual that actual visual references of explicit scenes are necessary. Maybe if this was a Playboy wikia that might be different. I think it's better to err on the side of caution, especially since Wikia doesn't require visitors to enter their age before they enter the site . We need to think of the children who visit this site and the parents who trust Wikia and it's members to responsibly control the content referenced on the site. Some of the pics on this page alone really need to be removed. --MochaShakaKhan 15:39, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Closing the debate: question asked and answered

There is no guarantee, either by Wikia, or by tardis.wikia.com that this site will be inoffensive or "safe for work".

Further, you understand and acknowledge that by using the Services you may be exposed to content that you may find offensive, indecent or objectionable and that, in this respect, you use the Services at your own risk.Wikia's Terms of Use

The appeals of users, above, who feel we need to be "safe for work" are therefore summarily denied. We are a Wikia wiki. We work in an environment where "appropriateness" of an image, a page, anything is not guaranteed. By becoming a user of Wikia, you absolutely and explicitly agree not to be offended by what you see here.

Now, of course the local administrative staff can further restrict content however we see fit. We can therefore say, "You may not use racist language on this site." And we can enforce that by deleting such language and blocking the users who leave it behind. Would it be within our power to take down the images we've been discussing? Of course. But we're under no obligation to do so by any reasonable interpretation of the terms of use. So statements like, "we need to think of the children", or "it crosses the line of what's usually considered SFW" are — despite being well-intentioned — simply irrelevant.

Doctor Who may be a kids' show, but this site is not now, nor will it ever be, completely "safe for work", "kid-friendly", or "family friendly". This is not disney.com or even bbc.co.uk/doctorwho. This is an encyclopedia about the DWU, where any and all aspects of that universe are covered.

In the DWU, people have casual sex with any gender or species (TV: Series 1); Jason Kane and Jack Harkness sleep with . . . anything; people do say "fuck" (PROSE: Transit, TV: The Blood Line); and religion is seen largely as a myth. (TV: The Satan Pit, PROSE: Byzantium! and many others)

So are the local administrators going to "police" pictures and articles for sexual content. Yes and no. We're not going to let people put up random pornography on the site. That's obviouly the quick route to infinite blocking. But all three administrators who responded to this thread unanimously had no problems with the images actually under discussion. Thing is, this was all in our image use policy from before this discussion was started. As long as the picture is of something which actually occurs in a DWU narrative, it's allowable.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:48: Mon 26 Sep 2011