Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

At this point, I'm so over fretting about "porny" stuff on Commons - I'm more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of "our" websites, then I'm not really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved. (Meaning "naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on Commons under a free license.")

-Sarah


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe <topazbutterfly@gmail.com> wrote:
The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

It's female nudes all the way down.

Nepenthe


--
--
Sarah Stierch
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian