[Foundation-l] Sexual images of questionable provenance

[David Moran]

Also, it's probably worth pointing out that most of the people here
ultimately seem to be urging a re-examination of Flickr-licensed images in
general, not so much specifically sexual ones.

FMF




On 12/10/08, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's helpful or useful to classify images that aren't
> currently being used in an article somewhere as second class, or more
> readily deletable.  There are, I think it safe to say, TONS of images on
> Commons that aren't being used anywhere.  So what if we have male nudes far
> in excess of what would ever need to be used in one article?  The point of
> commons isn't as a hosting substitute for Wikipedia's article, it is as a
> repository of free images.  For most purposes, people will only need one
> image out of a group, but offering a variety from which they can choose can
> only be beneficial.
>
> If the free-ness of an image can be reasonably disputed, fine, go ahead and
> delete it, but don't start setting up separate standards for deletion based
> on an image's use.
>
> FMF
>
>
> On 12/10/08, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Actually I don't care if the image has sexual content or not. There are
>> some points we should consider:
>>
>> At first I don't trust all the claims on flickr.
>> Second there may be content that violate personality or other legal
>> issues.
>>
>> Some of the images were uploaded years ago and at that time we had other
>> measurement criterias as today, so I think a reexamination should be
>> done, this totally unrelated to the content of the images.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>> Waerth wrote:
>> > Oh boy in comes the political correctness brigade .....
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I believe that we have a lot of images from flickr with sexual
>> >> content. And there is no way to make sure that the (Fe)male on the
>> >> photo agrees with the photo on commons or the licence it is under.
>> >>
>> >> I have tryed to nominate images like that for deletion. I can say all
>> >> image are kept. The main reasson was the image is free so we can have
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> I believe that image with sexual content have to be checked... Do we
>> >> need it... Is it really free.... Isn't there a other option than a
>> >> image.
>> >>
>> >> We have more than one category with nude male or female images and
>> >> most of them are not in use on any project. I don't think we need the
>> >> images with very young people on it.
>> >>
>> >> Huib
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>