Pete, I'd invite you to run a Google image search for Bagby Hot Springs, with safe search turned off. The first one hundred images include about as many images of female nudity as the nine-image Commons category.
That is the difference between Commons demographics, and general demographics. Andreas On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd > hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be > the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than > clothed people. > > But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked people on Commons is > a very different thing than having naked people used to illustrate an > encyclopedia article. And this particular example is one of many, many > thousands of images of nudity on Commons, some of which are far more > problematic. I would urge anyone wanting to take this issue on to spend > some time processing maybe 20 or 30 of the dozens of deletion requests that > come through Commons on a daily basis. It's a good way to get a sense of > the scope of the issues involved, and the thinking around what does and > doesn't get kept. > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot >> Springs does not depict any nudity in the images: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs >> >> At this point, I'm so over fretting about "porny" stuff on Commons - I'm >> more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on >> Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of "our" websites, then I'm not >> really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved. >> (Meaning "naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on >> Commons under a free license.") >> >> -Sarah >> >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe <topazbutter...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless >>> endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( >>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg), >>> a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, >>> it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could >>> be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs! >>> >>> Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic >>> articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women. >>> >>> It's female nudes all the way down. >>> >>> Nepenthe >>> >>> >> -- >> -- >> *Sarah Stierch* >> *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* >> *www.sarahstierch.com* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
