I am getting plenty more results than what we have on Commons. I am suspecting that a bad example was chosen here, because they are HOT SPRINGS; which generally means that nudity is allowed, and given what they are, it's generally to be expected. Unless of course we want to turn back the clocks to the 1920s with full-length knicker-bockers being required.
In fact, the article even mentions it -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs -- "Nudity is allowed on the bath decks, but not in the open areas around the bathhouses." The source (http://web.archive.org/web/20060207092727/http://members.aol.com/besthikes/bagby.html) states: "Nudity is permitted in the tub areas, but not in the open areas around the bathhouses. Again, courtesy and respect for the feelings of others is the guiding principle." So I am really failing to see why this is an issue when Commons accurately depicts one of the major features of this park, and which is likely why a lot of people head to the park in the first place. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
