File talk:On the edge - free world version.jpg

 

This file has been used by a media organization in: On the edge - free world version.jpg. Wikipornia - porn from Wikipedia (2013-08-22).

Category:Allegories of liberty

Please include this image in Category:Allegories of liberty, see File:1672 Gérard de Lairesse - Allegory of the Freedom of Trade.jpg Fred Bauder (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Please add to the above category. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

dedicated works

Please add File:Censorship in anime.jpg to the list of dedicated works. -- Michael F. Schönitzer 23:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not chose such pictures as a picture of the day

Hi,

The POTD is being used on several other websites and shown on the first page of Commons. Please consider that some people, especially children, won't understand why such pictures are being featured like this. The picture is nice, but it shouldn't be featured as POTD.

Sorry for my english.

--84.226.188.204 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my experience most children like boobs. --Slomox (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But En:Melanie Klein said there were bad boobs, too. Fred Bauder (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh even worse: in my country most people actually started its life by putting one of those in mouth. :-P --grin ✎ 10:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, beyond being inappropriate it's just incredibly tacky and out of place. The images selected for POTD have a kind of universal appeal, they're interesting to almost anyone. They come from nature, or history, or science, and so on, and have a broad appeal. The subset of people interested in soft core anime pornography is extremely niche even if they happen to be overrepresented among active users here. -Forrest

Maybe we should count the military weapons or pictures from the US army on the mainpage to get some facts? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be interesting. If we have too many of those, the reasons might well be the same -- demographic overrepresentation of young males -- and it should be addressed. How often a month would you say it happens? --JN466 01:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Science is also a topic heavily featured on POTD. Yet another sign of young male overrepresentation. So let's all think for a moment and come up with stuff old women like. Any ideas? --Slomox (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Quilt patterns, my mother always liked quilt patterns. Fred Bauder (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss this on the Gendergap list; there are some old women on that list. You're welcome to join and defend your comment. [1][2] --JN466 10:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How about discussion things at a public place where it is more likely to have some "normal" women involved? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Gendergap is for anyone interested in the issue of how to address participation by women in our projects. We do not limit participation in it, or in any Wikipedia project, to those who are "normal", however it may be defined. Fred Bauder (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466: I see no reason to "defend" my comment. It was not meant to be misogynic nor philogynic. It was just a helpless tongue-in-cheek question phrasing the opposite of "young men". The Wikimedia projects are an environment 99% of the population does not like to be part of (for a wide variety of reasons). In the remaining 1% men and especially young men are overrepresented. As a young man I cannot change much about it (well, I could improve the ratio by stopping contributing, but I guess that's not the idea). If you have positive ideas to improve representation then I'm all for it. But if you want to achieve better representation by censoring stuff young males like that won't work. Mangas with sexist motives exist and this image is a pretty good illustration. Therefore it was featured on Commons. If you don't like it that's a personal attitude but not relevant for Commons. --Slomox (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that sounds more civil. I would say it is highly relevant for Commons, because the pictures of the day we choose indicate who we are, and what we are about. If they cater disproportionately to the interests of young men, young men is what we will attract. If we cater disproportionately to the interests of women, women is what we will attract. Given the gender gap, this might actually be a good idea. If on the other hand we feature images that turn a large percentage of our target audience off, and that make us look puerile and nerdish, then we just reinforce the existing contributor bias. Frankly, I cringed with embarrassment when I read this. (I also don't think this image did us any favours in Bangladesh, where it was on the Wikipedia main page, in terms of attracting female contributors, or mobilising educators.) So, I actually think that finding out what kind of media women like, and making an effort to feature such content as PotD, would be a great idea. Cheers, --JN466 16:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Puerile. Hm. Because it is totally mature to be embarassed by a pair of drawn breasts, a feature 50% of the population share. It's a cultural thing. Some cultures go as far as hiding the whole female body under burkas, other cultures are okay with wearing no genital-covering cloths at all. Should we apply a lowest common denominator and remove all images from POTD that could be offensive to some group of people? Or should we be tolerant and accept that there are different approaches to these kinds of cultural things?

If we opt for lowest common denominator, we should not forget that exclusion can be offensive too. --Slomox (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that breasts are part of the issue, but not in the way that you mean. Let me explain: in my view, the image has neither the outstanding artistic value nor the outstanding educational value to qualify as featured. I don't care whether it shows breasts or a railway engine. However, my impression is, based on "support" comments like "Support i like her big tits :-)" in the original nomination for featured status, that some people were simply unable to look beyond the big breasts at the actual quality of the image, and its usefulness to Commons' educational mission. And you see, it's at that point that things become puerile: when we feature original erotic art just because it is erotic, and not because it is notable, artistically superb, or of outstanding educational value. (By the way, the image's featured status is currently under review, here.) --JN466 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem we face in this area is, that we don't get much "notable" art because all of the notable ones are copyrighted. Therefore we need non-notable "in the style of" art to illustrate manga topics. Personally I think that this image is a very fine piece of art, but the quality of art of course is in the eye of the beholder.

And even if you now claim that not breasts are the problem but the quality, it still was the original reason why this image got so much attention. People disliked the prominent display of breasts.

"i like her big tits" is not a good reason to make an image featured, that's right. But "it was featured with comments like 'i like her big tits'" is also no good reason to delist it. --Slomox (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on the latter point. Pictures should be promoted in accordance with Featured picture guidelines, not on the basis of editors liking them. I for one have not once complained about the fact that the image has breasts. I have contested its featured status on the basis that it does not live up to our FP guidelines, in terms of artistic and educational value, and I have questioned its being in scope on the basis that it is too specific to be of illustrative value (unlike other Featured pictures by the same artist), and seems conceived as an original piece of art in its own right, rather than something designed to educate. Commons policy states that Commons is not meant to be a repository of original art without obvious educational value, just like we would not host garage bands' songs, even if they are in a particular musical style. Commons is not a platform to host and promote your artwork, like DeviantArt for example. And if you feel the image is worthy of featured status, do point it out on the delist proposal page -- but please comment about the image's artistic and educational merits, rather than the fact that it has breasts and therefore should be kept. We owe that much to our public. --JN466 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You can not deny: manga-style/artwork is an encyclopedic topic that has to be described. For presenting a topic an image, a sketch or a diagram are often adequate because one picture is worth ten thousand words. This pretension is fulfilled by Niabots artwork. For example I think that I have a very realistic and unemotional style to photograph my beloved buildings. I like to search new and interesting viewpoints, but from my understanding of art I would never call my pictures artworks. But some people do so. Would you say now that I promote art here in Commons? Have fun starting thousands of deletion requests. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on, this is just silly. Photographs of a building are educational because they depict the real world. The problem with Niabot's image is that it doesn't. It's fantasy art, pure and simple; you can only use it to educate someone about the artist, Niabot, but he isn't notable outside Commons (yet). --JN466 12:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now we come to the philosophic exciting question: "what is real?" :-) Is the manga/ animee-style not real? Is is a chimaera? Is Donald Duck real? I guess it is more or less comparable with mangastyle. Why we have an e.g. a picture in Donald Duck? But I don't see such rumors about this picture. Maybe you can explain me the difference. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Donald Duck is a lot more famous than Niabot. --JN466 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on, don't play the fool: you are obviously mixing up the artwork with the artist. I am also not Santiago Calatrava but my pictures of his buildings (File:Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg) displays the accordant article. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay then: Donald Duck is a lot more famous than Niabot's girl, or scenes of manga girls sitting by waterfalls. --JN466 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And now you can not keep apart to different types of illustrating a topic: (1) The objectiv style like buildings, cars, cities and stuff like this and (2) the representative style if there is no possibility to take the the "original" for copyright reasons or if you have to have to take a alternative image to to regard other laws. Example: this picture File:Wiki-gangbang.png illustrates the article Group Sex and Threesome because it is not allowed to load up photographs of this action (which I endorse) in the Wiki projects. But the pictures illustrates as a kind of representative this sexual activity. No one of the three figures in the pictures does exist in real. Besides: wouldn't it be a good idea to promote this File:Wiki-gangbang.png as a FP and nominate it for the Picture of the Day? :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexually explicit photographs aren't actually disallowed; some Wikis use a few. However, editorial judgment in the wikis usually (but not always) goes in favour of a drawing, rather than a photograph. Seedfeeder, the artist who created the images you linked, did a lot of useful work there. The difference with his work is that he illustrated sexual and pornographic practices that occur in the real world. That, and the fact that they were artistically quite well done, were responsible for the fact that so many wikis found them educationally useful. They are not art for art's sake, as this image is. --JN466 13:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see your argument. But this type of art for art's sake we have a lot here at Commons (example: File:Moutian lion.jpg). I would agree upon your mind if Niabot would misuse Commons as a platform for promoting strongly his artwork. But I know Niabot personally, he is not a professional artist but just a fan of mangas and animee (by the way: me not) and an exceptionally gifted amateur artist that do a lot of useful, often difficult and complex graphic work for this project. And because of his passion for mangas he also draw this style of art such as other do here too. (Category:Surrealist_drawings) --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I know he's a talented artist, and I've seen his other featured work, including manga work, and agree it's outstanding. I just don't think this has the same outstanding educational value (neither has the image you link, in my view) to be featured. I'll think about the extent to which original art like that can be said to have "obvious" educational value.

I do think Niabot gets too steamed up about his images sometimes (and I think the Photoshop job on the Escher museum was pointy, and a mistake). I can see it's not without provocation -- it sucks when someone criticises your art without knowing anything about the genre at all -- but let's all try to stay mellow. I'll be the first to support a piece of erotic manga for featured status if I think it is both artistically and educationally outstanding, like some of his other work is. So let's make peace. --JN466 14:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not against you. I would like to understand your argumentation. But sadly you hedge the key point of your main argument. But okay, let's make a break here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's okay. As we're now actually having a conversation, I'm happy to explain. What point are you referring to? --JN466 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466: Personally I have no problems with having garage band songs on Commons. If they publish their songs under free licenses what harm could it do to us if we host these songs? If they are decent we can use them for articles on musical styles or elements or on a wikibook about founding garage bands. If they are too crappy to be ever used for anything we can still delete them (although I have an "in dubio pro reo" attitude on that because almost every file can be useful for something that may surmount the imagination of the "delete" voters).

Just like you fear that the judgment of the voters was skewed by their fondness of boobs in the initial featured image vote, I now fear that the judgment of the voters in the de-feature vote is skewed by some voters' aversion of manga nudity. Both our fears are just presumptions, but presumptions with some degree of likeliness. --Slomox (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Many delist voters have acknowledged that other erotic manga artwork by Niabot, like File:Anime_Girl.png, is deservedly featured, because it's illustrative of real world manga. There are thousands of published manga/anime drawings that are recognisably like that. This just isn't as good artistically, and nowhere near as educationally useful. There aren't thousands of published drawings like that, it's its own thing. Anime girl is used in dozens of wikis' namespaces; this image isn't used at all. That should tell you something about its value as an illustration of manga style. (The derivative version above, File:Censorship in anime.jpg, is realistically useful for an educational purpose.) --JN466 12:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But it would not exist, without this image as a source. Keep going, just a little bit more thought and you could get it. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So because you created a realistically educational derivative of this image, the original image should be featured? Nope. The educational value of original art has to be obvious, and outstanding; neither is the case here. If you were honest with yourself, you'd acknowledge that. --JN466 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a very different opinion regarding your imputations. Even if im honest, i can't achknowledge that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-use with wrong credit: http://wikipornia.blogspot.de/2013/08/on-edge-free-world-versionjpg.html .