Forum:Prohibited content/mature content

We have a question about "mature" or "adult" content over at the fiction wikia (novelas). The Terms of use and Prohibited content seem to indicate that Wikia needs to "draw the line" between prohibited and allowed adult content. Is there someone with Wikia who has the job of making such decisions? --JWSchmidt 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, could i put some nude chicks in that wikia? ;) Heimster Laufern 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. We have allowed some content that might be considered "adult" under some circumstances. For example, full nudity on the Naked Wikia. Where to draw the line is a question for the community and staff, working together. It's a matter of judgement. "Erotic" fiction is probably OK, "pornographic" fiction is not.I would recomend that any fiction that might be getting close to the line should have a warning though, and it might be better to keep a good distance into the obviously "safe" area. -- sannse (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is one particular short story that might be suitable as a test case. --JWSchmidt 23:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal view is that that story goes too far. But I think it's something you should discuss as a community and see what you come up with.  -- sannse (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with sannse, wikis are for wholesome content for all ages, not for the promotion of so called "adult" content. But, that is just my opinion. 14:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't strictly say all wikis are for content for all ages. If that were the case the BDSM wiki couldn't exist. It's just that areas such as that need warnings and such. It's possible for us to setup a template (eg: a Template:Adult) which would activate some javascript code similar to what is on the BDSM wiki to give out a warning and force the browser's back button if the user hits cancel. Though, it's possible that the Google ads might half to be substituted for the other Graphical NonTargeted ads put up in some other wikis due to the content. But you might half to ask google what it defines as adult content. Because unlike the BDSM wiki, there is no images. And some groups would only define images as adult content, while others will also go against text content. Dantman (Talk) 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * True, I guess I just wish Uncyclopedia wasn't as crude, and that the restrictions were higher on a few others.... 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think wiki's should base their description of content that is over the top on what their target content is, or what it's limitations or rules are. The content on The Gaiapedia is about a website. So because that is our target content, we match as much of our rules and content limitations on the TOS of the site we document. Which is a PG-13 site, so we wouldn't allow that kind of content in our wiki. But the BDSM wiki is documenting content which is already considered Adult, thus it's limitations are much higher. Literature is literature whatever it's rating. So if you were creating a wiki about books by a certain artist, you wouldn't exclude some of their books just because they had adult content. Dantman (Talk) 05:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe that the Wikia should be a mixture of children/adult content, we don't need to post naked pictures just to please adult or any forms of porn. This site should be free of peer pressure and make it enjoyable to all ages.

(Joekido 11:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Google's ad policy says no, "Pornography, adult, or mature content". I'm guessing that it stated in this way because "adult" and "mature" are sometimes used as euphemisms for pornography. I'm guessing that maybe Google's intent is that there be no content that meets a legal definition of pornography. The Wikia terms of use page says, "Pornography and hate sites shall not be created as Wikia. However, please be aware that wikis may still contain content of an adult nature, or content that you find offensive." I'm guessing that it stated in this way because "adult" and "pornography" are sometimes used to mean different things. In particular, it seems to mean that "adult content" is sometimes found on Wikia websites as long as it is not pornography. Do we need to apply the Miller test? If so, the fiction wikia runs into a need to define which contributions have "serious literary value". --JWSchmidt 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another distinction is that we might have a wiki about an adult subject, rather than for an adult subject. That's where the BDSM wiki comes in.  The idea is that it will describe the culture and practices, which may mean some images that are "adult content", but it must certainly not become a source of porn.  Again, the line can be a tricky one, and I would like to see it grow in information without pushing that line too much at all.  I'm sure that's possible.  Fiction is harder I think, because it's so subjective what is "literature" and what isn't.  So perhaps the wiki needs some clear guidelines such as "no explicit portrayal of sexual acts", leaving writers to work within those limits.  What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Wikia Terms of use prohibition on obscene content can help establish a boundary that is more restrictive than the legal boundary for pornography. The legal boundary for pornography has a fairly clear exception for literature. However, the FCC provides an example of a well-established system for blocking obscene content that is not counter-balanced by an exception for "literary value". According to The FCC, "the courts have approved regulation of broadcast indecency to further the compelling government interests in supporting parental supervision of children and more generally its concern for children's well being." The FCC makes a distinction between broadcasts that are likely to be viewed by children and broadcasts that are not likely to be viewed by children. Since wiki content is always viewable by children, Wikia can decide to adopt more restrictive standards for obscene content, similar to those applied by the FCC to broadcasts that are likely to be viewed by children. The obscenity/indecency standards used by the FCC focus on content that describes or depicts "sexual or excretory organs or activities". However, "It is not sufficient, for example, to know that explicit sexual terms or descriptions were used". The FCC makes it clear tat the full context of potentially obscene content must be taken into account. For example, they mention that there can be exceptions for descriptions and depictions that are in a context such as a newscast. Another exception they describe is broadcast of sex education material. So "no explicit portrayal of sexual acts" might be too strict of a restriction. These two examples of exceptions do not seem likely to come up in the context of fiction writing. Here is a situation that comes to my mind: there might be a fictionalized account of criminal behavior such a Jack the Ripper-type case. In a fictionalized account of a criminal investigation, the author might include graphic and explicit descriptions of potentially obscene content, but because of the context (a small part of a long story that is required to "solve the case") we would not want to prohibit the content. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fiction wiki too, and since I've only found adult content on one, I don't think it's much of a problem to worry about right now. Besides, I've recently added a ratings box for the stories, which marks it as teen or adult content, among other things. --Yunzhong Hou 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not a big existing problem. However, I am in favor of not waiting until it becomes a big problem. Also, I think it is possible that the one existing case crosses the line that will have to be drawn. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)