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, 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 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. > > 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't like a use standard, I'd be happy to accept an OTRS > standard for identifiable nudes, but I do think we need to recognize > that not all images have equal impact. Is it useful to have 500 > poorly documented pictures of naked women, maybe. Is it harmful to > have 1 image inappropriately uploaded by an angry ex-boyfriend, > absolutely. If we can help prevent the latter circumstance by > reducing the number of poorly documented (and often unused) nude > photos on Commons, then I am all for it, regardless of how you want to > approach it. > > Perhaps because I suggested "use" as a limitation, you misunderstood > my goal. My intent is to prevent the misuse of Commons to store and > distribute images inappropriately, by which I mean images not > authorized for distribution by all the parties involved. This is an > area where I think we would lose little if we removed images we aren't > using (speculations about sex manuals notwithstanding), but if you > want to take different steps to minimize inappropriate use then by all > means suggest what they should be. > > -Robert Rohde > > _______________________________________________ > 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
