On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Well you do realise that now you are an admin your days of browsing any type of pr0n are behind you. ;)

You are right, no-one in their right mind would use Commons to search for pr0n. I just did a search for big dick on Google, and there is one result from a WMF project in the Top 100 results -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Donato -- obviously picked up because he was on BIG brother. But amongst the other 99 results from the top 100 there are all sorts of sites one would go to if they wanted to see, well, big dick. :)


I must admit. This had me LOLing and almost spitting this delicious beer on my laptop. 
 
In relation to the category Alison raised -- are they in scope? Who the hell knows. I am very liberal minded, and have a very liberal interpretation of scope as it pertains to our projects, and while I struggle to see scope in those images, I am sure there might be some sort of scope there -- even if they were to illustrate an article on the gender gap in computer sciences -- would that be an encyclopaedic topic?


Crazy insane idea: notability guidelines for media categories? 

/me hides

-Sarah
 

--
--
Sarah Stierch
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian
www.sarahstierch.com