Commons as an art gallery?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Commons as an art gallery?

Andreas Kolbe
There is a long thread on the Commons and Gendergap lists about today's
featured image on Commons:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/

It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, "in the style of" erotic
manga:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg

The picture was removed from the main page by a WMF staff member, acting as
an ordinary editor, and then restored a few hours later by a Commons admin.

Aspects of the image that have been discussed include the fact that

* it has no noteworthy artistic value

* it is used to showcase a Wikimedian's artwork on the project main page

* it lacks educational value, being the work of a non-notable Wikimedian

* it makes the Foundation look puerile

* it might turn off serious educators

* it might turn off older people

* it might turn off schools

* it might turn off women

* it might turn off institutions owning valuable content from donating to the Foundation

* it is the victim of cultural fascism directed against manga/anime

* it is the victim of prudery

* it is the victim of censorship

* not showing the image on the mian page would undermine the Foundation's mission

etc. etc.
 
This is really a Foundation topic though. Are projects' main pages there to
showcase Wikimedians' fine art? If yes, then why do we not have songs by
unsigned garage bands "in the style of ..." as featured media of the day?

Should the Foundation establish guidelines on what type of content to feature
on project main pages?

Crossposted to Foundation-l, Commons-l and Gendergap.

Andreas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Ilario Valdelli
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There is a long thread on the Commons and Gendergap lists about today's
> featured image on Commons:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/
>
> It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, "in the style of" erotic
> manga:
>

I could continue to say what said in the past.

Commons is a "common repository for the various projects".

Now the real problem is that Commons is in conflict with other
projects because "original works" of pure fantasy (I don't include
"original works" to document the reality) are not accepted, except in
Commons.

In general if I would use these images in Wikipedia, for example, I
would be in conflict because I cannot use "original works" in this
project (and this image is a "strict" original work).

In my opinion Commons is moving the project in an incorrect direction
and I would appreciate a lot if Commons will divide the project to
receive "original works" of pure fantasy in one repository and the
documentary work in another in order to help the other project to
understand what is original and what is not original.

Commons should have the same rule of Wikisource/Wikibooks.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Andreas Kolbe
Neil posted the following on Commons-l* and asked for it to be
cross-posted here: --

* See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006038.html
* Also see  http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006036.html for a longer post by Neil on the image


---o0o---

On 5/16/11 5:40 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

> This is really a Foundation topic though. Are projects' main pages there to
> showcase Wikimedians' fine art?

No. This is a non-issue.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose

"Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational
purpose: [...]
    * Self-created artwork without obvious educational use."

QED.

Someone else cross-post this to Foundation-L... I have assiduously
avoided subscribing there and don't plan to now.


--
Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ) <neilk at wikimedia.org>




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Béria Lima
I would like to question something:

Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because here people
can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the people who can
actually change the policy are the commons editors.

So, is not better spend all that talk in the wiki?

_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.***


2011/5/16 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>

> Neil posted the following on Commons-l* and asked for it to be
> cross-posted here: --
>
> * See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006038.html
> * Also see
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006036.html for a
> longer post by Neil on the image
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> On 5/16/11 5:40 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > This is really a Foundation topic though. Are projects' main pages there
> to
> > showcase Wikimedians' fine art?
>
> No. This is a non-issue.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
>
> "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational
> purpose: [...]
>    * Self-created artwork without obvious educational use."
>
> QED.
>
> Someone else cross-post this to Foundation-L... I have assiduously
> avoided subscribing there and don't plan to now.
>
>
> --
> Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ) <neilk at wikimedia.org>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Andreas Kolbe
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Béria Lima <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to question something:
>
> Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because
> here people
> can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the
> people who can
> actually change the policy are the commons editors.
>
> So, is not better spend all that talk in the wiki?


I've been discussing it on your Commons talk page for the past four hours,
but you're not replying. Would you like to suggest somewhere else?

Andreas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Béria Lima
well, you are not the only talking in my talk page, so i imaged my opinion
would be useless :P

But in this case, i will go there answer you people.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.***


2011/5/16 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>

> --- On Mon, 16/5/11, Béria Lima <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to question something:
> >
> > Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because
> > here people
> > can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the
> > people who can
> > actually change the policy are the commons editors.
> >
> > So, is not better spend all that talk in the wiki?
>
>
> I've been discussing it on your Commons talk page for the past four hours,
> but you're not replying. Would you like to suggest somewhere else?
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Andreas Kolbe
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe
Incidentally, that little piece of original art is also the picture of the
day on several Wikipedias' main pages; among them the Russian and Bulgarian
Wikipedias.

The image itself has been nominated for deletion in Commons by User:AndreasPraefcke, as out of scope.

A.

--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>, "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <[hidden email]>, "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 16:40
> There is a long thread on the Commons
> and Gendergap lists about today's
> featured image on Commons:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/
>
> It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, "in the
> style of" erotic
> manga:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
>
> The picture was removed from the main page by a WMF staff
> member, acting as
> an ordinary editor, and then restored a few hours later by
> a Commons admin.
>
> Aspects of the image that have been discussed include the
> fact that
>
> * it has no noteworthy artistic value
>
> * it is used to showcase a Wikimedian's artwork on the
> project main page
>
> * it lacks educational value, being the work of a
> non-notable Wikimedian
>
> * it makes the Foundation look puerile
>
> * it might turn off serious educators
>
> * it might turn off older people
>
> * it might turn off schools
>
> * it might turn off women
>
> * it might turn off institutions owning valuable content
> from donating to the Foundation
>
> * it is the victim of cultural fascism directed against
> manga/anime
>
> * it is the victim of prudery
>
> * it is the victim of censorship
>
> * not showing the image on the mian page would undermine
> the Foundation's mission
>
> etc. etc.
>  
> This is really a Foundation topic though. Are projects'
> main pages there to
> showcase Wikimedians' fine art? If yes, then why do we not
> have songs by
> unsigned garage bands "in the style of ..." as featured
> media of the day?
>
> Should the Foundation establish guidelines on what type of
> content to feature
> on project main pages?
>
> Crossposted to Foundation-l, Commons-l and Gendergap.
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Risker
In reply to this post by Béria Lima
On 16 May 2011 12:54, Béria Lima <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would like to question something:
>
> Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because here people
> can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the people who can
> actually change the policy are the commons editors.
>
> So, is not better spend all that talk in the wiki?
>
>
Well, I suppose I would be happy to talk about it on the wiki....if I could
find the place where it's being discussed.  Not at the village pump, the
talk page for picture of the day, the talk page of the image, the
administrator noticeboard, the Main Page talk page...

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

Andreas Kolbe
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> From: Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>, "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <[hidden email]>, "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 19:03
> Incidentally, that little piece of
> original art is also the picture of the
> day on several Wikipedias' main pages; among them the
> Russian and Bulgarian
> Wikipedias.


It's also on the Bengali Wikipedia's main page (serving Bangladesh and parts of India).

http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE

Andreas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Béria Lima
On 16.05.2011 18:54, Béria Lima wrote:
> I would like to question something:
>
> Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because here people
> can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the people who can
> actually change the policy are the commons editors.
>
> So, is not better spend all that talk in the wiki?
>

I have thought to don't reply to this cross-post but I have only
indicated one opinion concerning the impact of Commons choices in the
other projects.

I would not influence the decision of the Commons community (probably in
future I will subscribe to this list), but I would give to all
communities a point of discussion to understand that an important
project like Commons can influence other projects.

In my opinion this image, put in all wikipedia home pages, can create
two big problems:

a) a problem of acceptance of "original works"
b) a problem of acceptance of "promotional works" (original works are
not accepted also to prevent promotional works)

I understand the position of Commons, and there is no problem to have
this content (but well categorized in order to prevent mistakes), but
the decision of Commons has broken two important pilasters of Wikipedia,
for example.

In any case we could start from this experience to improve the
guidelines of Commons and of all other projects, not necessary looking
in this experience like a point of dispute.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

Andreas Kolbe
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe
Pete Forsyth made what I think is an interesting point on the Gendergap list.

Reproduced below, with his permission.

> --- On Mon, 16/5/11, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
>> To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 16:49

>> In my opinion there's a large and
>> pervasive problem behind today's controversy: in striking
>> contrast to our core value of openness, it is very difficult
>> to even *perceive* how important decisions like this are
>> made. Both the technical and the editorial processes are
>> pretty opaque to the average main page visitor.
>>
>> I suspect there are ways the Commons pages relating to
>> Picture of the Day could be improved to make it clearer to
>> the reader how decisions are made, and how to meaningfully
>> participate in those processes.
>>
>> For instance, main page content could have a link named
>> something like "how did this get here?" that would permit
>> the reader to view the discussion that led to its inclusion
>> on the main page. (This is just an off-the-cuff idea, to
>> illustrate the general kind of usability changes I would
>> like to explore.)
>>
>> To put it another way, the issue behind today's controversy
>> that interests me most is access. Increasing the ability of
>> a large and diverse group to participate in important
>> decisions (like what gets featured on the main Commons page)
>> is something that would both honor the basic values of our
>> project, and (I believe) support better content decisions in
>> the future.
>>
>> Anybody interested in tackling this issue?
>> -Pete
>>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons as an art gallery?

Steven Walling
In reply to this post by Risker
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, I suppose I would be happy to talk about it on the wiki....if I could
> find the place where it's being discussed.  Not at the village pump, the
> talk page for picture of the day, the talk page of the image, the
> administrator noticeboard, the Main Page talk page...
>
> Risker/Anne
>

Ha! Exactly. I am on Commons just about every other day, and I couldn't
figure out the best place to bring it up.

Steven
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

David Richfield
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe
How on earth can this become the POTD on any Wikipedia?  It's
tolerably well executed art, but utterly non-notable.

--
David Richfield
e^(πi)+1=0

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

Robert Rohde
2011/5/16 David Richfield <[hidden email]>:
> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/5/16 David Richfield <[hidden email]>:
> > 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

David Richfield
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
Ah, sorry, I missed the point that it was on the Wikipedias solely as a
Commons POTD, and that it hadn't been selected by the wikipedias
themselves.
On 16 May 2011 10:10 PM, "Robert Rohde" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/5/16 David Richfield <[hidden email]>:
>> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
I feel like this image from the same author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png might be crossing the lines. Given Niabot's user page loudly railing against Commons being "censored", I'd say the issue is less "art" and more "lets see who we can shock and/or piss off."

-Dan
On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2011/5/16 David Richfield <[hidden email]>:
>>> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

Thomas Morton
Yes. I would agree that image is the other side of the line and into
pornography.

Tom Morton

On 16 May 2011, at 23:22, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I feel like this image from the same author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png might be crossing the lines. Given Niabot's user page loudly railing against Commons being "censored", I'd say the issue is less "art" and more "lets see who we can shock and/or piss off."
>
> -Dan
> On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2011/5/16 David Richfield <[hidden email]>:
>>>> 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
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Commons as an art gallery?

Delphine Ménard
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Thomas Morton
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes. I would agree that image is the other side of the line and into
> pornography.
>
> Tom Morton
>
> On 16 May 2011, at 23:22, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I feel like this image from the same author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png might be crossing the lines. Given Niabot's user page loudly railing against Commons being "censored", I'd say the issue is less "art" and more "lets see who we can shock and/or piss off."
>>

Allow me to disagree. While it would be hard for me to actually see
this Futunari image get to the front page (I'm prudish that way), I
actually "learned" something from it (had no clue what Futunari was
all about, now I know).

Which is far from being the case with that "On the edge - free world
version" image, which brought me absolutely nothing except a rather
puzzled wtf?


Delphine


--
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l