Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

2009/2/2 Yaroslav M. Blanter : > In any case, aside from the usefulness of the images, I do not see any > rationale for the existence of the above category. We have a few categories already for source-of-images, don't we? Certainly all the Bundesarchiv images are organised this way... -- - Andr

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

> On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like > preview > pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some > of > those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole > would not fall ,at least IMHO, under "Must be realistically use

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole would not fall ,at least IMHO, under "Must be realistically useful for educ

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Friday 30 January 2009 01:02:41 Chad wrote: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me > >_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg > > > a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds > no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hard

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

Sam Johnston hett schreven: > Is it ever clear "that the depicted person agrees to the depiction"? Well, it's not, but that's actually not a very useful point. I was never in Cameroon. I have never met anybody from Cameroon. I have never seen any obvious evidence that Cameroon really exists. And

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

2009/1/30 Marcus Buck : > The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So "NoGenitalia" *could* > be the thing you two are searching for... > > Marcus Buck Breasts are also something on an issue. It would also be somewhat tricky to make a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nopenis.svg style i

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, geni wrote: > > Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have > articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images > of faces. > > In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same > providence issues. > > Oh yea

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

geni hett schreven: > 2009/1/30 Chad : > >> Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than >> going through all of the human anatomy. >> >> -Chad >> > > > Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have > articles on means that we should have several hu

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

2009/1/30 Chad : > Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than > going through all of the human anatomy. > > -Chad Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images of faces. In addition

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth : > > I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any > > nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions > > about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of > > c

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth : > I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any > nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions > about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of > consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, David Moran wrote: > I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the > idea that sexual images equal "harm". > > FMF The two are not necessarily equal. There are plenty of people who, upon finding a nude picture of themselves on Wikipedia, wo

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > David Moran hett schreven: >> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea >> that sexual images equal "harm". > > Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As > far as I have understoo

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

David Moran hett schreven: > I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the > idea that sexual images equal "harm". > > FMF > Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about delet

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea that sexual images equal "harm". FMF On 1/29/09, Nathan wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan wrote: > > > > > > > To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of > any > > sort o

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan wrote: > > > To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of any > sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship. To > me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible. > Re-reading myself, cultural

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM, David Moran wrote: > I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition > that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a > multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many > images are useful

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of image I

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran wrote: > "just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't > mean we should." > > For what reason, specifically? > > FMF > > > On 1/29/09, Chad wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman > >wrote: > > > > > voyeuri

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should." For what reason, specifically? FMF On 1/29/09, Chad wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman >wrote: > > > voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture? > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Ch

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman wrote: > voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture? > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad wrote: > > > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would > > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I alwa

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture? On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad wrote: > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always > considered > that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism d

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran wrote: > That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather > than the images themselves. > > DM > > > > > On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran > > wrote: > > > "Commons

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather than the images themselves. DM On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran > wrote: > > "Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a > dumping > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran wrote: > "Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping > ground for all media that happens to be free." > > What's the difference? "Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence, with images added for

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

"Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping ground for all media that happens to be free." What's the difference? FMF On 1/29/09, Marcus Buck wrote: > > Two comments: > > Thomas Dalton hett schreven: > > Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion a

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

Two comments: Thomas Dalton hett schreven: > Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it > usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on > "utility". I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since > the subjects aren't identified and they chose t

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

Forum shopping typically describes someone going from forum to forum trying to get a different decision on some particular thing they want. In this case, I don't think privatemusings is looking for a specific outcome (like deleting an image, achieving a block, influencing an AfD, etc.). The object

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

2009/1/30 Nathan : > Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right > as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it > further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding. Sure, he has the right to post. However, foru

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding. Nathan ___ foundation-l ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM, private musings wrote: > > This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, > I > apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for > proposing > policy , > flood

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

private musings wrote: >> G'day all, >> >> This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this >> post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia >> projects for proposing policy >> , flooding >> and generally

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

> > I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since > the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a > public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be > better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of > posing would ruin the

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

> - In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be > rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or > permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment. Perhaps you explain this in your essays (it's late and I have to be up early,

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:39 PM, private musings wrote: > G'day all, > > This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, > I > apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for > proposing > policy

[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

G'day all, This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing policy , flooding and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so