[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

[Thomas Morton]

Ah... this is one of those perennial issues that is unlikely to be solved
this time around.

I think casting this a gender issue is incorrect; certainly amongst my group
of friends those who would not appreciate the image are fairly evenly split
between male/female. I think most rational adults can tell the difference
between porn (or gratuitous sexuality) and nudity.

The other problem is not recognizing this as art, in the same way as
artistic nudes. Given the ease of making images nowadays there is an awful
lot of them out there - and this one certainly  runs a fine line. It's an
area that is always going to be subjective.

Commons is, surely, about media. Is this good media? I am no expert of this
genre, but it seems reasonably decent. At the end of the day, NOTCENSORED
does come into play - it is a legitimate genre, where the image is judged to
be of a high quality. It just happens that it offends the sensibilities of,
by comparison to other issues, a largish portion of the editing community.

There is an irony in there somewhere.

Tom

On 16 May 2011 21:10, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/5/16 David Richfield <davidrichfield at gmail.com>:
> > How on earth can this become the POTD on any Wikipedia?  It's
> > tolerably well executed art, but utterly non-notable.
>
> The Commons Picture of the Day process allows photos / illustrations
> of a very high technical quality to be promoted even if they have no
> claim to notability at all.  In general, "notability" has very little
> to do with Commons at any level.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>