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
I wouldn't mind a standard that said that identifiable, contemporary
nudes (i.e. images with faces showing which aren't decades old) would
be deleted if there aren't being used on any Wikimedia project. There
is a non-trivial risk of harm if we simply allow unlimited inclusion
of photos that
Hoi,
When a Google Summer of Code project is about aspects of usability, then we
have on the one hand the cost of mentoring and on the other hand the benefit
of three months of work done by typically really dedicated people. We have
seen that people who started in a SoC program continued to be
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
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
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 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
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM, 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
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Oldak Quill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree that we should have different standards for media
containing nudity and sexuality. Sexuality is an important educational
subject. One of the most important, as another poster pointed out. On
Wikipedia alone,
Sorry I wrote my last mail in haste and I didn't explained it very good.
At first I am not very worried about images on commons, I believe there
are already some reexaminations done. I am more worried about images
that are in the local projects. Take the example of my home-project
zh-wp. We
Forwarded with congratulations to the Dutch board:
http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Nederland_wint_kort_geding_Sijthoff/en
Ziko
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Maybe we the technical side of WMF could get a communications
advisor, some trusted volunteer from among the regular Wikimedians,
like they've done at the Chapters Committee recently.
Thanks,
Pharoos
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Eugene Zelenko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
There are many
11 matches
Mail list logo
