I liked Facebooks' careful definition of what constitutes nudity. Though their new policy would allow for diagrams of genitals for medical education, it would be tough for Commons to adopt similar anti-nudity laws without deleting a lot of historical and culturally relevant photographs, plus all the 19th century oil paintings where every other famous work seems to have a bare-chested woman in it. Oh and of course, all those naughty shots of Roman antiquities with their depictions of satyrs and gymnasts with their prominent buttocks and junk hanging out.
It's a bit sad that a policy like this would not stop all those damn-awful amateur shots of girls in bikinis on a beach holiday being uploaded every year. Yeah, let's park this idea. Fae On 20 March 2016 at 10:25, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: > On 19 Mar 2016 13:47, "Toby Dollmann" <toby.dollm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Much of it is relevant for WM Commons. > > How so? Commons has a very different purpose to Facebook. > > -- > Andy Mabbett -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>