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 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 what would ever need to be used in one article? The point of > commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a > repository of free images. For most purposes, people will only need one > image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can > only be beneficial. > > If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and > delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based > on an image's use. > > FMF > > > On 12/10/08, 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 legal >> issues. >> >> Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other >> measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be >> done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images. >> >> Ting >> >> Waerth wrote: >> > 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 images like that for deletion. I can say all >> >> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have >> >> it. >> >> >> >> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we >> >> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a >> >> image. >> >> >> >> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and >> >> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the >> >> images with very young people on it. >> >> >> >> Huib >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
