On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:05 AM, stevertigo <stv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kat Walsh <k...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very >> little informational or educational value > > This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not > belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as > stated above. "Prurient" and "exhibitionist" are terms which seem to > adequately define what doesn't belong.
I disagree. Pictures should be judged on their value for Commons, not on something else. And that value is decided by what the picture _is_ (as Kat says, informational and/or educational) not by what it _is not_. If the best (from an informational perspective) picture we have of a subject is prurient or exhibitionist, then I want to keep it. If on the other hand a picture has been done very tasty, but nobody can find a reason to call it informational, then I won't shed a tear about it being deleted. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
