Sarah, indeed, I should have been more clear. It is the Commons category
for the Hot Springs that contains the nude images, not the en.wikipedia
article.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article
about the Babgy Hot
Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs
At this point, I'm so over fretting about "porny" stuff on Commons -
I'm
more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on
Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of "our" websites, then I'm not
really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved.
(Meaning "naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on
Commons under a free license.")
-Sarah
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe <topazbutterfly(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The more I look into it, the more it seems like
it's a pointless
endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_R…),
a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!
Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.
It's female nudes all the way down.
Nepenthe
--
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap