On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: > On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris McKenna <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about? > > Your statement isn't credible.
I don't understand what is not credible about my statement? I honestly do not understand why anybody finds this image objectionable. > >> The image is not pornographic, > > Citation needed Pornography is defined as: "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic. > >> exploitative, illegal or otherwise >> inapropriate for featured picture status. > > Yes you may not be aware of it but there are many projects out there > that are able to distinguish between "featured X" and "must appear on > the main page" > Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page. If you wish to make this distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus then images you object to will not appear on the main page. >> If you want to any keep images off the main page that are "sexy", >> "pornographic", "offensive" or any other arbitrary label you wish to >> choose, please start by defining in a neutral, objective and culturally >> independent manner every such label you want to use. > > Within the context of the culture it was produced in the image is > clearly an attempt at low level errotica > No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are interpreting it as "low level errotica". In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort. According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort. The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex than in these two cultures. >> Secondly, please explain how this is compatible with Commons being not >> censored. > > Main page is not equal to commons. I'm not aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored. If you wish to change this please gain consensus. >> Thirdly, please define precisely what it is you are trying to achieve and >> why. Please do so in an objective and culturally independent manner. > > We are trying to demonstrate that commons is not a sexualised enviroment. > Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though. > >> Please explain how your comments are neutral and take into account the >> sensitivities of all cultures and special interest groups, not just your >> own. >> > > You first. > I am not the one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not offensive. All of the example images I gave were chosen because they are as likely to offend a group of people as this one seems to, just different groups of people. For instance several cultures object to the depiction of any images of human beings, others regard a woman with her head uncovered to be very offensive. The image of a woman on the sanddune is of an off-duty military officer. There are many people for whom female military officers are offensive, others will object to public money being spent on such activities and/or the official photogrpahing of such activities. That the woman is also not dressed in accordance to the local culture would also be very offensive to some. If you would consider any of these to be accpetable for the main page, but not the original image under discussion, then I'm asking you to explain how your view is objective. My view is that all featured pictures are suitable for the main page because Commons is not censored - it is thus neutral as it takes into account that there is no global standard in this regard and is biased towards no one group. Now, how about answering the remaining points? ---- Chris McKenna [email protected] www.sucs.org/~cmckenna The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
