Am 16.05.2011 17:20, schrieb geni:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris
McKenna<cmckenna(a)sucs.org> wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual.
Therefore it is not
pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary
sexual characteristics is not sexual?
A picture showing a naked woman is natural.
Come to Germany and enjoy
some time at a FKK (Freie Körper Kultur, eng. Free body culture) beach.
There is nothing pornographic (sexual) about this.
Commons does
not presently make this distinction and so your satement is
irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.
Your agument was about
featured status not main page status.
If you wish to make this
distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the
objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus
then images you object to will not appear on the main page.
Historically we've
found allowing some of our more respected and less
juvenile admins to make the call works well.
Commons and the other projects are
communities. We like to dicuss things
first. Up to day there was no problem, until such an intervention made a
problem out of this topic.
No, within the
context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are
interpreting it as "low level errotica".
You know those two positions
are not actually mutually exclusive
In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing
nothing of the sort.
And which context would that be? I thought we had abolished
all the
blind colonies.
According to the description provided by the
creator it does not appear to
be anything of the sort.
It's a long standing observation that artists of many
types tend to
avoid specifically stating such facts.
Im not avoiding it. If it was created for
pleasure of the eye or sexual
desires, i would state it as this. Actually this image was created after
the last call from Jimbo himself. Yes it should show some kind of kink.
This was intended, but nothing more then a reaction to the previous
intervention which failed in so many aspects.
The creator is
apparently German. I believe that current German culture is
far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or
British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex
than in these two cultures.
Oh indeed but within the Naturism movement there is
such a thing as context
I named this image "On the Edge", because... Aren't we on some kind
of
edge currently?
I'm not
aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is
not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored.
If you wish to change this please gain consensus.
Oh if we want to play that game
there is no policy stating applying
discretion to what we feature on the main page makes commons censored.
Maybe we
should create such an policy. In German wikipedia we had such
an decission a good time ago. Closed with 233:13, to not censor the
mainpage by any means. (Note: Many german contributers participate as
well on commons)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Beschr%C3%A4nkung_der…
Okay. I
don't understand how this relates to this image though.
It's possible that
you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we
would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual
basis.
I am not the one claiming this image is offensive
or inapropriate. I am
saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the
laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not
offensive.
So? That doesn't make your position culturally neutral.
Greetings from Tobias