The image has had a tumultuous history on the encyclopedia, since a Vote for Deletion in 2005. Between 2005 and 2009, the image was repeatedly uploaded and deleted under our criteria for speedy deletion: namely, G3 (pages that were created solely to vandalise the encyclopedia) and G4 (pages recreated after a deletion discussion, when the recreation did not address the reasons for its deletion. In April 2009, the image was uploaded, and a user made several edits to the image and included it in a manner the user believed to address the criteria; however, the image was summarily deleted and the deletion later endorsed by the community. In mid-to-late-2009, a consensus of editors on the talk page agreed to have the image used, but hidden by default, and later shown by default. The inclusion was controversial, and led to a Mediation Cabal case to resolve the dispute by those wishing to include and those wishing to exclude the image. After another summary deletion, a deletion review found the image to have been deleted out of our normal process, and was deferred to the files for deletion process. After a lengthy nine-day discussion, which pitted the reasons of Wikipedia not being censored and precedent in cases regarding website screenshots and notable images against copyright concerns, ethical concerns about using pornography without the subject's consent, and an opposition to use of offensive content, the image was eventually deleted, with the closing admin noting that, while Wikipedia is not censored and may contain offensive images, there were still concerns about whether the image would pass our non-free content criteria which precluded usage.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is it okay if I upload an image of Goatse for the article? I know about the FAQ at the top, but I don't agree- the image fits all the non-free content criteria (it could be a restricted-use image), as far as I can tell. Hop on Bananas (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
For one thing, we don't know if the subject of the image gave consent for the photos to be released. So no, don't reupload it. —ajf (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but if the image is used under a fair use claim and fits all the FU requirements, it's okay. If the copyright owner asks us to take it down, we might (I'm not sure). Wait, are you talking about personality rights? The subject is dead. Hop on Bananas (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, as the subject took the photo and made the website, he gave consent. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Only if consensus is reached at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I would advise against it, since I'm not aware that anything has changed since the last review. If you think new information or change in policies since the last review would make it eligible for recreation then start a review with the reasons clearly stated and backed up. As a technicality, the file would be restored rather than a new one uploaded. JollyΩJanner 22:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The subject did not necessarily give consent for the image to end up on Wikipedia, and do we actually know that the subject was the author of the site? Regardless, given the sensitive nature of the images, this is ethically dubious. —ajf (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. The subject is dead and did put up the site (if not that would violate his personality rights, but since he's dead it doesn't matter anymore). Is there some other reason why the image can't be reused? If so, note it in the FAQs at the top of this page. Hop on Bananas (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)