I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal harm.
FMF
On 1/29/09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
To some of those people, and to others, trying to place
David Moran hett schreven:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal harm.
FMF
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about
deleting
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
David Moran hett schreven:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea
that sexual images equal harm.
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
far as I have
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the
idea that sexual images equal harm.
FMF
The two are not necessarily equal. There are plenty of people who,
upon finding a nude picture of
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any
nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions
about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of
consent? is the depicted model aware
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any
nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions
about their uploaded nudes (is the
2009/1/30 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than
going through all of the human anatomy.
-Chad
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have
articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images
of
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have
articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images
of faces.
In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same
providence issues.
2009/1/30 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So NoGenitalia *could*
be the thing you two are searching for...
Marcus Buck
Breasts are also something on an issue. It would also be somewhat
tricky to make a
Sam Johnston hett schreven:
Is it ever clear that the depicted person agrees to the depiction?
Well, it's not, but that's actually not a very useful point. I was never
in Cameroon. I have never met anybody from Cameroon. I have never seen
any obvious evidence that Cameroon really exists. And
On Friday 30 January 2009 01:02:41 Chad wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me
_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg
a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds
no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hardly
You
On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview
pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of
those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole
would not fall ,at least IMHO, under Must be realistically useful for
G'day all,
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I
apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing
policy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content, flooding
and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I
- In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be
rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or
permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.
Perhaps you explain this in your essays (it's late and I have to be up
early,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post,
I
apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for
proposing
policy
Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right
as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it
further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding.
Nathan
___
foundation-l
Forum shopping typically describes someone going from forum to forum trying
to get a different decision on some particular thing they want. In this
case, I don't think privatemusings is looking for a specific outcome (like
deleting an image, achieving a block, influencing an AfD, etc.). The object
Two comments:
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it
usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on
utility. I think it rates pretty low of potential for harm since
the subjects aren't identified and they chose to
Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free.
What's the difference?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Two comments:
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free.
What's the difference?
Collection implies some sort of useful organization and coherence,
with
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.comwrote:
That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather
than the images themselves.
DM
On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathosch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
considered
that a major point in
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.comwrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
hope being culturally
just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should.
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On
I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many
images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of
image
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of any
sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship. To
me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
Re-reading
27 matches
Mail list logo
