On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Pete,
I'd invite you to run a Google image search for Bagby Hot Springs
<snip>
Please don't confuse my offhand remark for an intent to change the way the article's illustrated. I just wanted to offer some context -- Bagby is locally well known as a place where nudity is (often) the norm. I attach no value judgment to that fact, but it's a fact that can be verified in any number of reliable sources, including the front page the springs' own web site.
-Pete
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than clothed people.
But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked people on Commons is a very different thing than having naked people used to illustrate an encyclopedia article. And this particular example is one of many, many thousands of images of nudity on Commons, some of which are far more problematic. I would urge anyone wanting to take this issue on to spend some time processing maybe 20 or 30 of the dozens of deletion requests that come through Commons on a daily basis. It's a good way to get a sense of the scope of the issues involved, and the thinking around what does and doesn't get kept. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
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.comwrote:
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_Re...), 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* *www.sarahstierch.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap