On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 15:29, Chris McKenna
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat
Commons as a gallery for non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about
anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes,
depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates
surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
The image could be printed on paper and used to construct a Pykrete
derivative. Are you going to try arguing that it's bulletproof as
That's a completely irrelevant statement as any image printed on paper
could be used in such a manner. Not every image could be used to
illustrate such topics though.
It therefore seems to me to be a very good
example of educational material
that Commons should be hosting.
If it was actually a very good example it is to be expected that it
would appear in the article name space of some of our projects. So
that the fact it seems to you to be a very good example merely makes
your judgment questionable.
Commons does not exist solely to provide images to be used here and now on
online Wikimedia projects. Or are you arguing that every image that is not
currently in use is not educational? One of my images on Commons, that
afaik has never been used on a project, has been used to illustrate a
report by the Law Society on the law regarding level crossings in England
and Wales. This report was published in 2010 but the photograph was
uploaded in 2005.
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery