[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't actually see what the problem is necessarily in deleting it.
> It's called editorial judgment, and as I have been telling people for
> years and years on Wikipedia, editorial judgment =/= censorship. You
> may write the most awesome novel to ever have been written, but that
> doesn't mean it's fit for Wikipedia. Similarly, you may have the most
> righteous CC-BY pictures of naked people or your birthday party or
> your neighbor's cat or whatever, but that doesn't mean any of it needs
> to go -- or should go -- in Commons.

Phoebe, of ~10 deleted images which I opened, statistics is around:
* 4 cartoons which represents different sexual acts (made for
illustration of sexual acts in Wikipedia articles)
* 2 naked women (porn stars)
* 1 naked man
* 1 Second Life sexual act
* 1 Second Life commercial (I suppose so)
* 1 art work

Just the naked man could be from "personal collection", while it was
obviously that photo was made carefully, not to fully show face, but
to show body for educational purposes.