Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 Archive 8

Contents

3 Status quo handling of controversial content

what is the purpose of including section "3 Status quo handling of controversial content" in this document/proposal?

the section doesn't deal with sexual content specifically, insterad it talks in "generalities" about inclusion/exclusion of content.

also, it subtly revises some of the established commons' policies & guidelines written elsewhere, which is dangerously unwise.

if approved, those "re-interpretations" could easily be bounced back, as "quoted references" in other deletion debates, & used to justify MORE deletions (of other types of content).

whether this was the drafter's intention, or not, the section could be used to change other commons' policies on inclusion/exclusion, "through the backdoor"

it should either be HEAVILY revised, or eliminated from the draft entirely.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

vegetable sexuality and human sexuality

I tried to count how many images we have under Category:Flowers. If I did the math properly we have something like 30,000 images related to the sexuality of flowering plants, just under Category:Flowers.

Sure, flowering plants are important, Half or more of our food supply depends on flowering plants, as do some important natural fibers, like cotton and linen. But I suggest human sexuality is at least one order of magnitude more important.

I haven't seen anyone suggest we have too many images of flowers. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Really a false analogy. I'm rather anti-censorship, but the depiction of flowers is simply not controversial, while the depiction of human sexuality—or even mammalian sexuality—is. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not false at all. I believe Geo Swan is saying that we shouldn't be concerned with what's controversial, but with what's educational. Powers (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Controversial is relative. Human sexuality is not at all controversial where I am from.AerobicFox (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, controversiality is relative, and yes, we do need to be more concerned with what's educational, because that's the goal of Wikimedia, but I dare you to find a place where the depiction of flower reproduction or sexuality is controversial. We do need to be worried somewhat about what's controversial, and how to approach these media so that our editors aren't turned off.--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Making changes to search results

Please see discussion at Commons:Requests for comment/improving search. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Sexual content/Archive 8".