Sorry I wrote my last mail in haste and I didn't explained it very good.
At first I am not very worried about images on commons, I believe there
are already some reexaminations done. I am more worried about images
that are in the local projects. Take the example of my home-project
zh-wp. We hav
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Oldak Quill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I disagree that we should have different standards for media
> containing nudity and sexuality. Sexuality is an important educational
> subject. One of the most important, as another poster pointed out. On
> Wikipedia alo
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LonelygirlUk.
> "Oh yes, Thats me— I consent to being naked on the internet"
>
> We're kind screwed with respect to your hypothetical, but we should
> still do due diligence.
>
Of course, the LonelygirlUK images were
2008/12/10 Huib Laurens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>
> I have tryed to nominate images like th
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Robert Rohde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Considerations of personal privacy don't apply to pictures of fruit or
> airplanes. Images of identifiable people posing are intrinsically
> different and deserve to be treated with greater sceptism.
>
> If you don'
I think first what would be required was that it be convincingly
demonstrated that "inappropriate use" of sexual imagery on Commons was in
fact a problem before we start crafting deletion policies to deal with it.
FMF
On 12/10/08, Robert Rohde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 200
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:22 AM, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Whitworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
>> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
>>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Ting Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
> some points we should consider:
>
> At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
> Second there may be content that violate personality or other lega
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons
Also, it's probably worth pointing out that most of the people here
ultimately seem to be urging a re-examination of Flickr-licensed images in
general, not so much specifically sexual ones.
FMF
On 12/10/08, David Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to clas
I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
readily deletable. There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
Commons that aren't being used anywhere. So what if we have male nudes far
in excess of
Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
some points we should consider:
At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal issues.
Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had
I wouldn't mind a standard that said that identifiable, contemporary
nudes (i.e. images with faces showing which aren't decades old) would
be deleted if there aren't being used on any Wikimedia project. There
is a non-trivial risk of harm if we simply allow unlimited inclusion
of photos that under
Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade .
> Hi,
>
> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>
> I have tryed to nominate i
Hi,
I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
image are kept. The main r
Hello Nathan,
also I don't consider myself as an active member of the commons
community, but surely as a heavy user of it :-), I agree with you that
we should reestimate these images.
As for other wikipedia language versions. As far as I know on my
home-version, the zh-wp there are no such ima
There have been a number of discussion on the English Wikipedia lately
(sparked, of course, by the Virgin Killer image controversy) on the
propriety of various images and the need for retaining them on Wikipedia.
This is a problem that has a long history on Wikipedia, and a number of
controls are i
18 matches
Mail list logo
