Category talk:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Note, this discussion was closed as  Keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of images from this category since they do not depict actual computer technology.

I would like to discuss the removal of images from this category. Many of them do not depict actual computer technology. Often the only items present in the photo are words and a nude woman or parts of a nude woman. In order to appropriately categorize and provide data about the images on Commons, we should appropriately categorize these images. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology and just because you may not like it, dont try to censor some images and cover attempts to remove the image from proper categories. It is only time wasted. Tm (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• It’s an {{Image set}}; the cat name is merely identificative, not descriptive. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment The photographer/artist's project name seems to be "Geekography". "Nude portrayals of computer technology" was editorial description added here on Commons by User:Cirt. Possibly the parenthetical description should be removed from the category name, rather than removing some of Panteleev's images from the category for not confirming to a Wikimedia Commons specific editorial description? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Educational use?

I have seen a lot of crazy discussion about these images, but when it comes to actual demonstrations of educational use, the closest I got was an illegitimate use of Body painting - before.jpg at ko:나체 미술 (since removed). That file is used at wikinews:ru:Звездные мобильники: Ексей Пантелеев, which looks like the sort of garbage I expect from a British tabloid (no citations of reliable sources and no explanation of educational or artistic merit).

There is a huge box at the top of the category description titled: Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests. But I ask this: if the media coverage is so good, why does Geekography not have a Wikipedia article or even a Wikidata item?

I checked some links that looked like they would be in English. The ‘article’ in TheNextWeb is just a short, silly note about the images. The coverage by Violet Blue is a weird series of blog posts that might feature the images but does nothing to explain what is so good about them.

Wnt said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology that this is good for demonstrating objectification of women, which might actually be a good argument for keeping these files. But it is fundamentally inconsistent with the rest of the discussion and with the description of this category.

Pinging @Infrogmation, Vydra, Tm as other prominent supporters of these files. Brianjd (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Delete @Brianjd: I contest the educational usefulness, too. The demonstrated CS concepts require unrelated prior knowledge/understanding to distinguish “this is the sexual part” vs. “this is the technical part”. For instance, to extract the “educational content” from a photo of a woman’s vulva and anus labeled USB type A and C respectively someone already needs “to know” that for penetrative sex the rectum is tighter than the vagina. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 13:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You have 89 different images being used a with a total of 194 distint uses, so there you have "actual demonstrations of educational use", or you have the use of images in 1 incubator, 1 meta, 1 incubator, 1 wikidata,, 1 wikinews language project, 1 wikiquote language project, 1 wikiversity language project, 3 wikidictionary language projectsand 43 wikipedia language projects, as ru.wikinews, en.wikipedia, zh.wikipedia, ca.wikipedia, vi.wikipedia, it.wikipedia, de.wikipedia, fa.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, ru.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, sr.wikipedia, uk.wikipedia, wikidata.wikidata, ar.wikipedia, pl.wikipedia, hy.wikipedia, nl.wikipedia, ga.wikipedia, eu.wikipedia, az.wikipedia,, en.wikipedia, eo.wikipedia, de.wiktionary, da.wikipedia, fr.wiktionary, kk.wikipedia, cv.wikipedia, af.wikipedia, ms.wiktionary, meta.wikipedia, te.wikipedia, id.wikipedia, fy.wikipedia, he.wikipedia, arz.wikipedia, et.wikipedia, sd.wikipedia, la.wikipedia, azb.wikipedia, tr.wikipedia, ceb.wikipedia, incubator.wikipedia, en.wikiquote, br.wikipedia, gl.wikipedia, zu.wikipedia, en.wikiversity and ur.wikipedia.

File in use is a file in scope, as stated in Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project clearly states "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."

You have w:Q75163697 about the photographer so there is "a Wikidata item"

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nordela, Commons:Deletion requests/File:GIF89a.gif, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology or 27 deletion requests with the same kind of wrong arguments as this discussion and where all files were kept is more than enough or this has been debated to death.

But there is even more as this was also debated to death in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology after some users hijacked the 2019 WikiConference North America to push and from that discussion ot was again established that this image are in clear scope. As was before debated n 2013 when an administrator run amok with the deletions out of process and this images were undeleted and scope was debated in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?

So, why again this same rehash of the same old and tired arguments that have been periodically established as wrong? Tm (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Also to shrugged off the coverage that this project as irrelevant is baffling.

So this project has been a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (selected as one of the 55 best between 309 winners) is irrelevant? A an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation is irrelevant?

And the fact that has been nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the american International Colour Awards is irrelevant?

Or the fact that this project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web , GQ Italy and the french newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides given an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, or that the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 or ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012 also used one of this photos? Having photos published in "nude art photography" book is irrelevant.

So the coverage of Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" of this same project is simply an "weird series of blog posts"?

So, in summary and by this logic, an important national web award is irrelevant? An exhibition on the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod, with the support of the Ministry of Culture is irrelevant? Nominations for an international photo award is irrelevant? Or the coverage and interviews by tech websites and magazines (and some of the bigger, reputed and relevent) like The Next Web or Mail.Ru is irrelevant or a"short, silly note about the images"? Coverage on GQ Italy and Libération is irrelevant? Coverage by Reflex magazine or being in the cover or articles of tech magazines with this photos is irrelevant? So russian, ukranian, czech, french, italian and american media, arts, photo, tech and cultural organizations are wrong and are irrelevant? Tm (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And the spurious arguments of this photos objectifying women, i have already proven that this is clearly false in Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, but just a brief recap:

1- 17 professional and adult female models have worked for him for more than 10 years publicly and notoriously, [models like Olya, Darina, Y., Olga, Olga, Alena, Maria, Anna, V., Margo, Polina, Agneta, Masha, Marusia, Alexandra, Luiza, Kristin. Some models even have commons categories and wikipedia articles like en:Katya Sambuca (with wikipedia articles in 11 languages). So there is no "objectification" of free and adult women, except what some people want to see but (intentionaly or not) clearly "denigrate their work" and free choices.

Those previous "arguments" of obejectification were "only making wild and inaccurate claims that attack the integraty and professionalism of the photographer and denigrates, slut shame, undervalues and makes misogynist claims on these models and their work by mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices". Really, we are living interesting times were the dictomony slut-saint dichotomy appears in some of the least expected places and with unsubstantiated arguments. Tm (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Kai Burghardt: this is a talk page for the category, not a deletion listing (in case you thought your "delete" vote relevant here). This has been discussed and argued about repeatedly at great length - some Wikimedians dislike this being here, but consensus has been repeatedly against wholesale deletion. There are things about the works of the artist I would criticize or that I find annoying - but that is neither here nor there, as I could say that about many artists. The works are free licensed, and in extensive repeated discussions judged to be within project scope over and over again. So given that deletion is not realistically on the table, what else is there to discuss to improve this category? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment @Tm: Thank you for showing me (and possibly others) this “GLAMorous” tool. It is worth noting that of the total 194 uses a whopping 58 uses are for the already mentioned Russian Wikinews “news” article (debatable good faith usage) and 13 uses are in the User/User talk name spaces (which are not mandated to serve the respective projects’ goals).

There are apparently indeed legit educational uses of some pictures. But what kind of uses?

• 24 uses (ca. ⅛) are to illustrate erotic models, predominately Катя Самбука.
• About 50 uses (ca. ¼) are to illustrate sexual topics like genital piercings, human furniture, vajazzle, BDSM, or similar.
• Female clavicle.jpg (18 uses) is a cropped image of the original removing any nudity not related to the subject matter.
• Female legs.jpg (1 use) and Body painting - padding.top.jpg (1 use) were already originally of non-sexual nature.
• No pictures (sincerely) serve the purpose to illustrate some computer technology, nor would I as a contributor to sister projects seriously consider using such pictures for said purposes. The (implicit) membership of Category: portrayals of computer technology is therefore at best dubious.

@Infrogmation: Yes, I’m aware this is no DR. I just could anticipate this will be a long discussion and I just like to summarize my post with some icon.

‑‑ Kays (T | C) 15:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kai Burghardt I was about to go down a similar path, but didn’t have time to do this kind of research. I would also note that some of the images shown in that GLAMorous search don’t seem to be ‘Geekography’ images, but rather other images from the same photographer. Brianjd (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

So, to some users, the coverage by reputable international media with some of them being some of the more known and reputable media that covers tech and computer technology is irrelevant. Cultural awards that awarded this blend of art photography and computer technologies are irrelevant.

But also being in use 194 times in 53 wikimedia projects is irrelevant. What counts, to those users, are the feelings of one user that its use is "debatable good faith usage" and that the uses are debatable and that the mere sugestion that this files are out of scope is nit utter nonsense, forgetting that Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project clearly states that a "media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose(...) if it is in use, that is enough.". Enough said about scope.

Besides the massive use as shown above in 53 diferent projects in dozens of different languages, this same discussion has happened for the last 10 years, again and again with the same rehashed and reheated arguments (if not clearly libelous, misogynist and patronizing), continually reopened and always closed with the same conclusion. As someone said "consensus has been repeatedly against wholesale deletion" in more than 27 deletion requests, in a general discussion on the Village Pump, on several noticeboards, so this reopening of this discussion with the same old and rejected arguments is praying to the wind, so i not going to waste any more of my time with the same rehashes. Tm (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tm: I am sorry, I thought you were already familiar with Commons: Project scope. Unlike Wikipedia, Commons does not have a notability requirement. Therefore wide reception (or lack thereof) is indeed irrelevant for uploaded media. It just needs to be within reason potentially useful for educational purposes. So far we could only observe educational usefulness primarily for sex-related topics. From that circumstance alone we can infer that potential future uses will focus on sex-related topics as well. It should be kept in mind that there are 387 unused media. There is in fact a warranted hesitant policy regarding nudity in place. I don’t contest the a. m. legit uses. It is just that I’ll hardly see any (future) author ever complaining about a shortage of nude female pictures, you know what I mean? ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 21:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, being that the my first edit in Commons was only on July 2006 and with only 3 747 695 edits in here i´am definitevely not familiar with Commons:Project scope, but good to know that the notability requirement, that no one has talked until now, is not a commons policy, fact that i did not, ironically, knew.

But, alas, the scope and educational purposes have already been established for more than 10 years and dozens upon dozens of discussions and the cultural awards and media coverage is one more proof of that. Tm (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Question @Tm: You mentioned the circumstance that this is a widely received and award-winning project again (and again in the DRs). I/We know that. Why are you bringing forward this circumstance then if it isn’t supposed to be some kind of argument? I could only understand this as a claim “hey, look, it’s notable”, but we don’t care whether something is notable or not. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 17:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)