Commons talk:Pornography

What is this?

What should this page be (just been moved from userspace to commons: )? Is is a official guideline? Where is the discussion? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I move it to commons so that it would have more discussion... I don't know the official process for to make this a guidelines. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the process here in commons, too. But it cannot be a official guideline without a discussion forming a clear consensus - I'm sure. So I wondered about the move to "Commons:". It's tagged now as "essay" - way better now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition?

So what is pornography? Who decides? Personally I don't find anything on your example, User:Max Rebo Band, pornographic. --ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think erotic content not in use in the appropriate article can be considered as pornography. In fact, all majorly erotic content is pornography. Only maybe 1 or 2 of these should exist (in such article such as w:breast and w:penis. --90.195.192.91 15:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What got me here is TY7's post on jimbo's page on WP about this. Definitely out of line and should be removed and for all other cases too. --Matt57 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also look it from another POV. If you take a look at Wikipedia:User_page, you'll notice that Wikipedia is not a blog nor a webspace provider. Since most of the images in this page are unrelated to the project, whether they're pornographic or not, should be removed. --Webwizard (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Commons:Project scope is already a well-written policy, and should completely supplant this proposal — no matter what, it would be improper to make any new policy here without changing that one accordingly, and if that were to be changed, why not just cover whatever issue you have there? It says that Commons is not a dumping ground for personal junk, and many of the true pornographic photos targeted by Jimbo as others would fall under its specific exclusion of "party photos" and "photos of yourself and your friends". But some of these Max Rebo Band photos have a clear artistic quality, and it would be a great shame to lose them.

I think that there is a relationship between what is artistic and what is educational, and that artistic photographs should be educational by definition. It is simply a matter of annotation. Consider the headline File:Leaning_on_Barn_Doors.png. In our ignorance, we can see in some general sense that it is a well-composed, interesting photo showing among other things that three furry spots are even better than one. But suppose that either the author or an educated critic were to annotate this photograph: to explain how he brought together the woman and the old mill, the use of the striking blue color and green background and column and peeling paint, whether the peculiarly unnecessary "CLOSED" on a closed door was selected intentionally, the decision on where to crop the rafters? at the top left and so forth. So clearly there we have the potential for a highly educational photo, showing people how to make good art. It's not like the all too typical porno camera snapshot where someone held the camera at arms length and popped the flash (and that's all he can say). But I'd like to actually see this annotation come to us, so that the education becomes more than just possible. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced

This proposed policy is poorly written and misplaced. Commons does not make decisions about which images are used in articles, that's a matter of policy for local projects. I've taken the liberty of marking it rejected. Please contribute to the main emerging policy at Commons:Sexual content instead. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)