[Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

geni geniice at gmail.com
Mon May 16 15:20:54 UTC 2011

On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna <cmckenna at sucs.org> wrote:
> The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not
> pornographic.

A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary
sexual characteristics is not sexual?

> Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is
> irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.

Your agument was about featured status not main page status.

> If you wish to make this
> distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the
> objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus
> then images you object to will not appear on the main page.

Historically we've found allowing some of our more respected and less
juvenile admins to make the call works well.

> No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are
> interpreting it as "low level errotica".

You know those two positions are not actually mutually exclusive

> In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort.

And which context would that be? I thought we had abolished all the
blind colonies.

> According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to
> be anything of the sort.

It's a long standing observation that artists of many types tend to
avoid specifically stating such facts.

> The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is
> far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or
> British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex
> than in these two cultures.

Oh indeed but within the Naturism movement there is such a thing as context

> I'm not aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is
> not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored.
> If you wish to change this please gain consensus.

Oh if we want to play that game there is no policy stating applying
discretion to what we feature on the main page makes commons censored.

> Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.

It's possible that  you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we
would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual

> I am not the one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am
> saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the
> laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not
> offensive.

So? That doesn't make your position culturally neutral.


More information about the Commons-l mailing list