Okay, I've complained a lot, time to give something back.
I think I've managed to create a sexual content policy that's consistent with the core values of commons and previous decisions, such as the artworks of Muhammed, while dealing with the problems and assuring that any sexual content that remains is, at the least, defensible as serving our educational purpose.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
It'll probably need a bit more work, but a policy based on forwarding our goals, rather than censorship... Well! Think we might have summat here.
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Adam Cuerden cuerden@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I've complained a lot, time to give something back.
I think I've managed to create a sexual content policy that's consistent with the core values of commons and previous decisions, such as the artworks of Muhammed, while dealing with the problems and assuring that any sexual content that remains is, at the least, defensible as serving our educational purpose.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
It'll probably need a bit more work, but a policy based on forwarding our goals, rather than censorship... Well! Think we might have summat here.
I am of the opinion that "clear educational purpose" is a much too stringent criterium. Does this mean that any picture (not including artwork) that might possibly have another reason to be taken must be deleted? I'm not so fond of your list of examples either. Apparently you have decided for all of us already that we should not have photographs of sexual positions? I think with these rules you are _still_ throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You still have Commons decide for Wikimedia as a whole what is and what is not to be put on the project pages. I think this should be the other way around. Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are usable for the projects. That is the first thing that we should be judging things by.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are usable for the projects. That is the first thing that we should be judging things by.
I've already emphasized that a bit already on the page, but more from the WARNING angle.
Could you edit or comment on the page in a way that reflects what you just stated? :-)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are usable for the projects. That is the first thing that we should be judging things by.
I've already emphasized that a bit already on the page, but more from the WARNING angle.
That only says that pictures that are _used_ should not be deleted indiscriminately. Used and usable are not the same.
Could you edit or comment on the page in a way that reflects what you just stated? :-)
Hardly. The page as it is now seems to go from the point of view that we should not host any pornography, then restricts itself by trying to get a narrow definition of 'pornography'. For me, whether or not something is pornographic is at best a secondary issue.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are usable for the projects. That is the first thing that we should be judging things by.
I've already emphasized that a bit already on the page, but more from the WARNING angle.
That only says that pictures that are _used_ should not be deleted indiscriminately. Used and usable are not the same.
Could you edit or comment on the page in a way that reflects what you just stated? :-)
Hardly. The page as it is now seems to go from the point of view that we should not host any pornography, then restricts itself by trying to get a narrow definition of 'pornography'. For me, whether or not something is pornographic is at best a secondary issue.
Then would the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship page be more appropriate?
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are usable for the projects. That is the first thing that we should be judging things by.
I've already emphasized that a bit already on the page, but more from the WARNING angle.
That only says that pictures that are _used_ should not be deleted indiscriminately. Used and usable are not the same.
Could you edit or comment on the page in a way that reflects what you just stated? :-)
Hardly. The page as it is now seems to go from the point of view that we should not host any pornography, then restricts itself by trying to get a narrow definition of 'pornography'. For me, whether or not something is pornographic is at best a secondary issue.
Then would the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship page be more appropriate?
I have now tried to set down my point of view in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Wrong_directio...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org