On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:34 AM, <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: To expand on Sarah's explanation: We are discussing these images precisely because viewing them causes many people, including people on this list, to feel uncomfortable and unhappy. Describing them in words causes a similar effect. Perhaps an analogy would help: Imagine that you don't like gory horror movies. So instead, someone narrates one out loud while you cover your eyes. While it won't be quite as horrifying, it will still upset you. -VAL -- You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture! Donate at http://donate.adainitiative.org

On 05/23/2013 02:58 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: I've been wondering about this myself. Why do people port collections of images from Flickr CC to Commons in the first place? If someone really needed a weird nude picture for an article, they could still find it at Flickr and import it then. (This might be part of my bias that WC is supposed to support other projects and not be an inclusive repo of all CC content in the world.) Indeed, I wonder what percentage of WC resources is not used by an affiliated project?

Well I suppose that on some level the people who upload those images believe them to be artistic in some way. After looking at most of the artist categories of the 17th century, I have noticed that it's generally the tits-and-ass images that find their way on to Wikipedia first. I myself have uploaded a few for lesser known artists for whom only those images were available at the time. Now, a few years later I am surprised to find that many of those artists were pretty good landscapists or still-life painters as well. As far as what percentage of Wikimedia Commons pictures are actually used in sister projects, no idea, but I suspect it's less than 50% On May 23, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:

When someone said "how come no one makes a big deal about category:foo when category:blahporn is always getting messed with!!" and i ended up nominating a ton of crappy flower photos for deletion. It was pretty funny, and dear god there are some crappy flower photos. Why have crappy photos. It's like we are doing a disservice! But, yeah, I'm sure for the most part people aren't sitting around and searching for porno on Commons. I think there are better places for that. I use Commons to look at bird pr0n (birds..like...real...birds...the one's that fly and have feathers) and pinball machines. So whatever. Sarah ps who can now say all these scary things cause she's now an admin on Commons ;) On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com*

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. :) 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? On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Yes, I totally agree with the beer spitting part, and also wish you lots of luck and patience with your adminship! Most people don't realize that of the 15 million files on Commons, 99% of the ones *not* linked into a sister project are pretty well "unfindable" unless you happen to google the name of the file. As far as notablity guidelines go for categories, I am not sure that this could be done, or that it would be useful. The category trees on Commons are one of Wikipedia's best-kept secrets, despite all the linking going on from sister projects like the English Wikipedia. Hopefully WikiData will change that. These categories are extremely useful however for insiders. What I do think might be enforceable through the Wikimedia Commons uploader is that for photos of a location, the local name of the location should be in the file name, and for art, the name of the artist should be in the filename, and for portraits of people, the name of the person should be in the filename. I myself try to keep a basic hierarchy as a naming convention, in the order " Artist - subject - where - date" and if I don't know the subject's name or place or date, I try to approximately describe this. Recently I started adding the museum accession number if there is one. So for example the name on this one should give an impression of what it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Hals_-_Violin_player_in_a_dune… The main problem with enforcing such naming conventions is the English-centric bias built-in, though that is not the issue here. The subject category of this email thread may be by some artist and using such a naming system would allow the uploader to sort the uploads into some category where people could use notability conventions for artists, in which case the deletion discussion becomes much easier. On the English Wikipedia, I believe notability guidelines are that an artwork must be worth about 3,000 dollars or more. This includes almost anything that has survived before 1800, but would not include most modern art such as these photographs. We would have a problem with grafitti art & artists though, so maybe an exception could be made for street art. On May 24, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote: