Sexualized images on Commons lacking educational value
I think this page for central discussion is a good idea. I tend to avoid such situations myself, just because I only occasionally edit in the arena of "living persons". I added my clarifications to the definition of "Sexualized images on Commons lacking educational value", because this term means something different to various groups. Jane023 (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Sexualized images - another perspective
The root problem is not there are sexualized images on Commons per se, but why those images are justified as being there - many people claim that Commons is an "image repository" that needs to contain everything. There are many problems that are caused, including the above and watering down of any educational content. Secondarily - most of the admin contribute only by performing actions that bots can (mass category changes), and they justify their continued existence there by those spam edits. The bad philosophy and admin who shouldn't be admin causes all of the many problems that can be attributed to Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
An utterly horrible idea
The subversion of a "gender gap" project into a proposal for censorship is completely unacceptable, and undermines the purpose of the gender gap project itself.
Policies against topless images directly undermine the heroic efforts of real feminists like FEMEN and Holly Van Voast and other New York protesters . They have put their freedom on the line for the basic principle that women deserve the same rights as men, including the right to dress the same. The proposal to "get over" our policy against censorship is no more reputable in opposing toplessness than it would be if it called for images of men in drag to be removed because some heterosexual men think they're disgusting. (And if you go to this, that well might be next)
The claim that women are intrinsically incapable of accepting freedom of speech is the most sexist thing I've seen on this encyclopedia. It is condescending, demeaning, infuriating for someone to claim that. If I really believed it for one moment, I would vote against a women based on her sex in any ballot for any purpose for the rest of my life, and hope to see the last one depart the halls of Congress. But of course it is crazy, a sinister attempt to hijack a project for gender equality for an unrelated purpose. Women on the project should be treated with respect, and treating the materials uploaded by others for their own interests with equal respect is a part of that.
I personally added the inline code to show the two mastectomy images on w:Breast, and they should absolutely include both sides. That's basic science, experiment and control. I don't intend any insult against women by doing so - indeed, I actually did so in response to a Wikipediocracy-originated complaint that I found valid, that by showing only some cosmetic procedures the article was projecting a subtly biased point of view. Our images are by no means as beautiful as the ones at , which do far more to show that the beauty of womanhood is utterly unbowed by the surgeon's incursions. But they are a start. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)