The reaction that EVula got /is/ disappointing.  But so is EVula’s reaction to the reaction.  Is it any surprise that someone who proclaims Commons to be “a fucking joke” and a “cesspool” isn’t going to get congratulated for an out-of-process deletion?

This is the biggest problem I have.  When even Jimbo can’t talk about Commons without disparagement, it undermines everything that we’re trying to do over there.  The notion that consent for the photograph is different from consent to be disseminated on Commons is a new one to many of us (no matter how much sense it makes), and it takes time for that notion to spread through the Commons community.

Moreover, the vast majority of Commons contributors – and Commons content, for that matter – are well outside these controversial areas.  It’s extremely discouraging to see all of Commons painted with this broad brush when we’re really dealing with a small number of people who are largely acting in good faith to defend free content (and, true, an even smaller number who just like to see pictures of naked people).

                        Powers  &8^]

-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle Gallaway [mailto:mgallaway@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday 18 May 2013 00:40
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, "booth babes" and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than an outright attempt to titillate.  Are random artistic images in Commons scope?

Of course, a lot of the creepier denizens of Commons probably can't appreciate that distinction.  The reaction that EVula got is really disappointing.