On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:05 AM, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Kat Walsh <kat(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
"Commons should not be a host for media that
has very
little informational or educational value
This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not
belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as
stated above. "Prurient" and "exhibitionist" are terms which seem to
adequately define what doesn't belong.
I disagree. Pictures should be judged on their value for Commons, not
on something else. And that value is decided by what the picture _is_
(as Kat says, informational and/or educational) not by what it _is
not_. If the best (from an informational perspective) picture we have
of a subject is prurient or exhibitionist, then I want to keep it. If
on the other hand a picture has been done very tasty, but nobody can
find a reason to call it informational, then I won't shed a tear about
it being deleted.
--
André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com