--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna <[email protected]> wrote: > Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - > to stick to > it's founding principle of being not censored. > > We best respect our end users by doing exactly what we say > we will do - > i.e. provide an uncensored repository of educational and > educationally > useful free media.
It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in that image. If someone argues against an image with breasts, it is censorship. If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's technically semi-competent, but undistinguished Thomas Kinkade pastiche in Commons, would you also shout censorship? Probably not, I guess, because the censorship argument requires that there be breasts in the image. Again, if I get a garage band to upload a few tracks, does the singer have to say "fuck" in the lyrics to have your support? That would work too: "Y'all only want to delete this great track in the style of ... from Commons because the singer says 'fuck'. But that's what singers in this genre of music say all the time, and therefore it's educational. Commons is not censored!" So ... following this line of thought, the way to prove educational usefulness in Commons seems to be to make sure that there are either breasts or "fuck" in your piece of art, or music. Because without that, it's just a so-so painting by an amateur artist, or a so-so track by an amateur band, and the censorship argument won't wash. The whole point is that this image has neither superb artistic merit nor superb illustrative value. Artistically, the perspective and textures are poor, as was pointed out at FPC, and educationally, the fantasy setting is too specific to be illustrative of a generic style. Andreas _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
