On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board > members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons > has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts. I don't read that. What I see is a debate about whether Commons discriminates in the right ways, not a belief that it is indiscriminate. The most frequent censorship on the Projects is done in the name of notability -- and it is done all the time. As an eventualist myself, I think that we are generally *too discriminate* in what we accept -- Commons and English Wikipedia are quite ready to delete media and articles simply because one group of established editors disagrees with the notability standards or writing style of a younger, less wiki-savvy group. For instance, professional artist, animator, and free culture activist Nina Paley had quite a difficult time contributing artwork to Commons without having it (and her userpage!) deleted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nina_Paley As to whether we have the right policies for discriminating between good and bad images of human sexuality, I think the worst issue is simply the lack of a standard for model releases. When it comes to assessing quality and appropriateness, I don't think the Commons standards in that category are much worse than in other categories. (Of course it may be true that the impact of standards in that category is much greater than in other cats, because of its disproportionate popularity). SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l