I agree that mass removal of photos depicting full-nudity statues (and in some cases erotic scenes, including intercourse[1]) or paintings of undisputed historical significance would be more harmful than useful and our policy should be inclusive of such material.
Given the different (:educational) context of Commons from that of Facebook's, I think adopting their policy 'as is' would not best serve our community. It can, however, serve as an inspirational starting point that we can build upon and adjust, to suit Commons' purpose and mission.
K.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Khajuraho-Vishvanath_Tem...
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I liked Facebooks' careful definition of what constitutes nudity. Though their new policy would allow for diagrams of genitals for medical education, it would be tough for Commons to adopt similar anti-nudity laws without deleting a lot of historical and culturally relevant photographs, plus all the 19th century oil paintings where every other famous work seems to have a bare-chested woman in it. Oh and of course, all those naughty shots of Roman antiquities with their depictions of satyrs and gymnasts with their prominent buttocks and junk hanging out.
It's a bit sad that a policy like this would not stop all those damn-awful amateur shots of girls in bikinis on a beach holiday being uploaded every year.
Yeah, let's park this idea.
Fae
On 20 March 2016 at 10:25, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 19 Mar 2016 13:47, "Toby Dollmann" toby.dollmann@gmail.com wrote:
Much of it is relevant for WM Commons.
How so? Commons has a very different purpose to Facebook.
-- Andy Mabbett
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe