On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Noein <prono...@gmail.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning <k...@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> I've already emphasized that a bit already on the page, but more from >>> the WARNING angle. >> >> That only says that pictures that are _used_ should not be deleted >> indiscriminately. Used and usable are not the same. >> >>> Could you edit or comment on the page in a way that reflects what you >>> just stated? :-) >> >> Hardly. The page as it is now seems to go from the point of view that >> we should not host any pornography, then restricts itself by trying to >> get a narrow definition of 'pornography'. For me, whether or not >> something is pornographic is at best a secondary issue. >> > > Then would the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship page be > more appropriate?
I have now tried to set down my point of view in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Wrong_direction -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
