Tomek writes: So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ? For what it's worth, I personally don't see the issue as one of making Commons (or Wikipedia or any other project) "family-friendly." There will always be content that some substantial fraction of the reading population will find offensive. This would be true even if the projects were limited to text. There's also no urgent legal issue driving any changes to Commons -- we don't have reason to believe any category of content we knowingly carry on Commons is definitionally illegal under U.S. law. (Obviously, when if people upload content that is illegal, and we're informed about its presence, we'll remove it -- most likely, volunteers will remove it even before it gets the attention of the Foundation staff.) If we judge Commons content simply on the basis of "Does this content serves the mission of the projects?" there is no doubt that some content will removed, some offensive content will not be removed, and Commons will no longer be a kind of "dumping ground" for anything and everything regardless of whether content lacks encyclopedic usefulness. As a side-effect of this, you probably get both (a) a resource that is somewhat more "family friendly" (because the sheer frequency of merely offensive images is reduced) and (b) a resource that remains essentially "uncensored," consistent with its encyclopedic mission. (I use "uncensored" here to mean "not edited merely to avoid offense.") --Mike