I agree that mass removal of photos depicting full-nudity statues (and in
some cases erotic scenes, including intercourse) or paintings of
undisputed historical significance would be more harmful than useful and
our policy should be inclusive of such material.
Given the different (:educational) context of Commons from that of
Facebook's, I think adopting their policy 'as is' would not best serve our
community. It can, however, serve as an inspirational starting point that
we can build upon and adjust, to suit Commons' purpose and mission.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org