On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Adam Cuerden <cuer...@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. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
