wrote:

Many of us are annoyed by such featuring.

Or perhaps, getting more people involved on the community selection

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: 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.

It therefore seems to me to be a very good example of educational material that Commons should be hosting.

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?

There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons

It's an educational project, not a vehicle for

A.

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.

Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons. Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the restriction that a file has to be educational.

From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:46 The image is derivative, see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:1672_G%C3%A9rard_d… but its theme of editorial freedom is culturally significant, at least to the Wikimedia movement.

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.

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally

Please cite your sources for the (lack of) artistic, historic,

significance for this image and all the other examples cited. > The only reason it's featured is > because it's sexually arousing to anime fanboys who happen to

Citation needed for a /very/ offensive remark. Why? Please be objective, preferably include references to reliable sources. > I think its obvious to any > reasonable person. If the image would be embarrassing to pull

Please define "reasonable person" in an objective, culturally

Please list an objective set of culturally neutral criteria that

allow any image to be safely displayed to any given group of

way that does not introduce censorship or cultural bias. "Not censored" means just that. If you aren't happy that some

offend you (or you find offensive on others' behalf) might be

then you should not use Wikimedia Commons. Chris ---- Chris McKenna cmckenna(a)sucs.org <mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org> www.sucs.org/~cmckenna <http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna> The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart Antoine de Saint Exupery _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Tobias Please explain how does one participate when their employment contract specifically states that viewing of sexually explicit material over the internet is a dismissable offense. The issue isnt hosting the image its about where its displayed. On 16 May 2011 22:32, Tobias Oelgarte &lt;tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com <mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>> wrote: Just logged in, so please bear with the possible wrong entry place. I strongly disagree with the removal. Not because that it is an image that i created. Because this is some kind of censorship, that goes strictly against the aims of the project itself. Some topics are fine and anybody can laugh about them, for some topics nobody cares and some topics causing confusion, hate and are a general nuisance. The later mostly because of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge. But which kind of world will we describe? The world how it is - the truth? Or do we want to select some mild topics and enjoy little bunnies on a field with dozens of flowers, while one house away bombs fall and the doughters of the family begging for money? Isn't it a bit ridiculous to select topics and to show only the bright sides? Im just wondering why illustrations of war machines are ok, while anything that is related to sexual nature is considerd as evil. Some saying that they couldn't tell there children what such images are about. But what about a picture of a gun? Can you explain to your children, why people kill each other? You should and could at least try to explain. The earilier the better. Kids have an open mind, that i miss so much in this project. Reading the words of Sarah Stierch, someone could assume that a picture of a naked male is fine. Do we get more female contributers by treating them as some special, out of the oridinary? At the last meetings in Germany i met several women, most complaining about this rather "useless campaing", that they even found "discriminating". Back to the topic itself. Did you even know, that half of the mangaka are females? Works like "Kodomo no Jikan" are written by female authors. Sexuality is a primary topic. No one could life without it. Depictions of sexuallity are known for thousands of years. And that is the point where i start wondering. While old works are seen as something relevant, new works aren't. Why not? They are from our time. In the time we life. Sorry for my English. But English isn't my main language. Tobias Oelgarte Am 16.05.2011 16:24, schrieb Chris McKenna: culturally significant, historic, or cultural to dominate the reliable pull up in front of Main Page. culturally neutral way. that would of people in a some images that be displayed <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Hopefully one day you'll understand that US standards don't and _*NEVER WILL*_ apply to other countries, so live with it.

Did it ever occur to you that something is wrong with prime-time TV? Fred

Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)

In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature this image without any concern: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg

Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to it's founding principle of being not censored.

From: Chris McKenna &lt;cmckenna(a)sucs.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" &lt;commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 22:21 On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: that image. If someone argues technically semi-competent, Commons, would you also shout censorship argument requires Censorship does not require there be breasts or "fuck" or anything else. It's just the only arguments I've seen about why this image should not be on the main page are that it contains breasts. If you want to complain that it should not be on the main page because it's a poor pastiche then that's a very different issue that is not censorship related, but not one that I've seen made and so not one I've made any comments about.

The world wide audience is another matter.

Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.

As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.

On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: And this audience is not well reflected by the lackadaisical attitude toward end users that pervades our otherwise wonderful Commons community.

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote: "Not censored" means just that. If you aren't happy that some images that offend you (or you find offensive on others' behalf) might be displayed then you should not use Wikimedia Commons. Thats the type of response that is driving people away from Commons, many

and the technical challenges associated with censorship, but I am no expert.

On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: I don't understand what is not credible about my statement? I honestly do not understand why anybody finds this image objectionable.

On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: I don't understand what is not credible about my statement? I honestly do not understand why anybody finds this image objectionable.

On 5/16/11 8:21 PM, Cary Bass wrote: That is definitely a practical solution. POTD are scheduled long in advance, so that could solve the problems here pretty quickly. The image in question is, IMO, unambiguously inappropriate for Commons, and this shouldn't have been a difficult debate. On the other hand it feels a bit wrong to me. In that case we're asking groups that are relatively underrepresented in Wiki culture to take on the role of policing. I feel like they ought to have some rights to a welcoming environment as a baseline. That said, in a wiki context, it seems to be impossible to achieve such baseline freedoms, as long as the offenders have large amounts of free time. So some people are going to have to make the sacrifices to change the culture. Another worry: if there's a "quality control board", officially or unofficially, they can start to take that role too seriously or become captured by various radical factions. But I guess we have to take that chance.

Am 17.05.2011 02:34, schrieb Neil Kandalgaonkar: Another board for decisions? Just leave the communities alone. They can handle it very well on their own. Any board i know failed in so many points. An good example from the German Wikipedia is the "Schiedsgericht". This is the last call if some users can't be stopped from offending each other. But this board isn't trusted at all and constantly breaks down. Just because it is seen as needless. What im seeing here is the construction of an government which isn't even democratic, getting very close to a dictatorship. Or as we said in the GDR: One party, elected by itself. Tobias _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

From: Chris McKenna &lt;cmckenna(a)sucs.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia

To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" &lt;commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 15:04 On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The images from today and yesterday are: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_imperialis_01.jpg > >

terms of educational vs. difference. Frankly, "Featured pictures are images that the community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." Both today's and yesterday's main page images are featured pictures. I am not making any judgement regarding educational or illustrative content, (both images are equally usable for educational purposes, albeit different ones) other than if two images are recognised to be of the same standard ("featured status") then they should be treated as having equal value to the project. If we want to treat artistic and illustrative works differently then we need separate standards to judge them by (instead of or as well as "featured status", I can see arguments for both). If we want to say that some featured pictures are more valuable to the project than others then we need some other status for one or other of the groups.

Yesterday there were calls that we should not be featuring the work of non-notable Wikimedians full stop. Today were are featuring the work of an equally non-notable Wikimedian and there are no calls for the image not to be shown on the main page on these grounds.

--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin /&lt;craig(a)halo-17.net&gt;/*wrote*wrote: From: Craig Franklin &lt;craig(a)halo-17.net&gt; Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" &lt;commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54 I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more elderly contributors remarked on it to me privately in a negative sense afterwards, all I could do was look embarassed and say "Yes, it's a bit of a racy image, isn't it. Can't imagine how anyone thought that would be a good idea". That's probably one contributor who won't be beating a path to our door in the future. And, at the risk of editorialising here, those who are responding to this criticism by claiming that we're asking for "censorship" or that the freedom to plaster graphic images over the Commons frontpage is a battle for liberty along the lines of the fight against slavery or for universal suffrage... need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down. Nobody is claiming that such images are not within Commons' scope; they quite clearly are, just like pictures of penises, medical procedures, and other images that people might find unpleasant are. Should they be in scope for the main page though? I don't think so, the same as a picture of a genital piercing, Osama bin Laden's bloodied corpse, or other pictures that could possibly cause innocent people to get in trouble should be out of main page scope. As a community, I think most of us are mature enough to apply a common sense test to these things, and common sense would indicate that that image was likely to be one that would cause needless offense to people and hurt the project. Sorry for your bad experience. In light of that, it is a bit galling to note that the contributor of the image says on his Commons user page, Rule #1: Commons is Censored [1] <http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3APotd%2F2011-05-16&action=historysubmit&diff=54418471&oldid=48204060> Some of my works were also accepted by */Featured Pictures/* <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures>. But who really cares about this subjective nonsense? I don't (anymore). It is equivalent to a private organization controlled by some divas and is not representable for the variety of images currently available on Commons. In short: /It is worth nothing and is total bullshit!/ / / / /http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Niabot/ / / / /The diva comment seems perceptive, though not in the way the contributor meant it. It's/ /absurd that //we let art from someone with those views hurt the efforts of those that //actually/ /believe in //this being an educational project. The tail wags the dog here; the importance/ /of manga in the overall "sum of human knowledge" is actually minute./ /The Featured status of the image itself is under review in Commons; the link is:/ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/remov… Andreas _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Is this picture worth more than 137,000 news images, Is this picture worth the loss of xontributions from GLAM organisations Is this picture worth the cost of denying other contributors the opportunity to participate. On 17 May 2011 16:16, Tobias Oelgarte &lt;tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com <mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>> wrote: Am 17.05.2011 02:34, schrieb Neil Kandalgaonkar: very least interested the POTD. Main Page The image and this we're asking take on rights to a context, it long as the change the become take that Another board for decisions? Just leave the communities alone. They can handle it very well on their own. Any board i know failed in so many points. An good example from the German Wikipedia is the "Schiedsgericht". This is the last call if some users can't be stopped from offending each other. But this board isn't trusted at all and constantly breaks down. Just because it is seen as needless. What im seeing here is the construction of an government which isn't even democratic, getting very close to a dictatorship. Or as we said in the GDR: One party, elected by itself. Tobias _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty. While we are at it

Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison.

Am 17.05.2011 17:56, schrieb Gnangarra: On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte &lt;tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law? do you appreciate the denial of liberty at airports that prevent your plane being bombed? -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.

Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.

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.

In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort.

According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort.

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.

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.

Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.

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.

The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.

Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.

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.

No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are interpreting it as "low level errotica".

In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort.

According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort.

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.

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.

Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.

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.

We are trying to demonstrate that commons is not a sexualised enviroment.

Pornography is defined as: "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.

I'm all for Commons hosting a wide array of uncensored images, but I'm tired of seeing the Main Page being used as a fap gallery for fanboys.

For some reason people don't seem as concerned about the real incidents of censorship on our projects.

I changed the picture.

I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any 'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person associated with Commons.

Actually, given that the template was cascade protected by virtue of it being on the main page, only administrators can edit it.  You're not an administrator on Commons, but you do have a staff flag.  Therefore I'd say that's a staff action.