Am 16.05.2011 17:38, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/16/2011 9:04 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna <> wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise
inapropriate for featured picture status.

The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you cited. The only reason it's featured is because it's sexually arousing to anime fanboys who happen to dominate the culture of Wikimedia Commons. I don't need to crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. I think its obvious to any reasonable person. If the image would be embarrassing to pull up in front of a classful of students, it shouldn't be on the Commons Main Page.

As with a number of us - this is a big concern. While I had originally posted this to the mailing list for gender gap discussion, this is another of the reasons.

Like I said, which I'm having a feeling wasn't even read by many - you cannot pull THAT front page of Commons up in a classroom or educational environment and have it celebrated by a middle school teacher. Some of her kids might think it's "cool" or "hot", but, if I'd be one pissed parent. All it takes is one pissed parent, who overreacts, to report to the news that "my kid was shown porn at school/museum/church/camp/after school workshops/whatever' and all hell will break lose.



Is this the only reason to justify that something can be shown or not? What about weapons, war scenes or even propaganda shots by the US army? Not one seams to care about this topics. Now we have an image of a fictional figure with bare breasts and it is a problem. How do you justify to show military propaganda?