Difference between revisions of "Wikimedia Commons"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Even if we throw "Family Friendly" out the window, it seems like this can be cleaned up even just a little bit--swear words are unnecessary, for example.)
m (HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://www.huffingtonpost.com → https://www.huffingtonpost.com, http://commons.wikimedia.org → https://commons.wikimedia.org (2))
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Wikimedia Commons''' (simply called '''Commons''' within Wikimedia projects) is a project of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] that seeks to create a database of "free" media, such as [[image]]s, [[sound]]s, and [[video]]. Media stored in Wikimedia Commons can be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikipedia]].<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Reuse#Embedding_Commons'_media_in_Wikimedia_projects</ref>
+
'''Wikimedia Commons''' (simply called '''Commons''' within Wikimedia projects) is a project of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that seeks to create a database of "free" media, such as [[image]]s, [[sound]]s, and [[video]]. Media stored in Wikimedia Commons can be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikipedia]].<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Reuse#Embedding_Commons'_media_in_Wikimedia_projects</ref>
  
−
Wikipedia Commons does not censor images submitted regarding pornography.  However, Commons has a group of administrators who review deletion requests and copyright concerns.  In 2009, a teenager took a couple of photos of himself and posted them to Wikimedia Commons. The first photo was of his bare legs, the second photo was of his nipple. In January 2012 he made a formal request asking Wikipedia commons remove the photos for him. Commons administrators denied his requests three times on the grounds that once he licensed Commons to distribute his photos, he could not revoke that license. Finally, another administrator who does not primarily focus on Commons took pity on the teenager and deleted the photos.  In contrast, a director of the Wikimedia UK charity uploaded a bondage photo of himself naked from the waist down. He changed his mind about having that photo publicly available because he was selected to testify on behalf of Wikimedia UK before [[Parliament]], and got one of his Commons administrator friends to quietly delete the image without a debate.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/10/14/wikimedia-needs-your-nipples/|title=Wikimedia needs your nipples|date=October 14, 2013|work=Wikipediocracy|accessdate=March 16, 2014}}</ref>
+
==Explicit images==
 +
Under the pretext of free expression, Wikimedia Commons hosts thousands of sexually graphic videos and images. It is unsuitable as an unsupervised resource for minors.<ref>Morris, Kevin. (June 26, 2013) "[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/how-wikimedia-commons-bec_n_3502688.html How Wikimedia Commons Became A Massive Amateur Porn Hub]". ''Huffington Post''. Retrieved September 1, 2017</ref>
  
 +
==Copyright issues==
 
The WMF attempts to second-guess the copyright status of photos that are claimed to be copyrighted. In 2011, David J. Slater, a British wildlife photographer, had a monkey grab one of his cameras.  Before Slater could recover the camera, the monkey had snapped a number of photos.  Slater then publicized his story and copyrighted and licensed the photos.  However, an editor uploaded a digital copy of the photo to Wikimedia Commons claiming that the copyright was invalid because the monkey had taken the photo.  Slater asked that the photo be removed from Commons because people were downloading and reproducing the image without paying Slater royalties.  The WMF denied his request.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/monkey-see-monkey-click|title=Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie|work=New Yorker|first=Jay|last=Kang|date=August 8, 2014|accessdate=August 8, 2014}}</ref>
 
The WMF attempts to second-guess the copyright status of photos that are claimed to be copyrighted. In 2011, David J. Slater, a British wildlife photographer, had a monkey grab one of his cameras.  Before Slater could recover the camera, the monkey had snapped a number of photos.  Slater then publicized his story and copyrighted and licensed the photos.  However, an editor uploaded a digital copy of the photo to Wikimedia Commons claiming that the copyright was invalid because the monkey had taken the photo.  Slater asked that the photo be removed from Commons because people were downloading and reproducing the image without paying Slater royalties.  The WMF denied his request.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/monkey-see-monkey-click|title=Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie|work=New Yorker|first=Jay|last=Kang|date=August 8, 2014|accessdate=August 8, 2014}}</ref>
−
==Wikimedia Commons as a massive amateur porn hub==
+
 
−
The Commons hosts thousands of sexually graphic videos and images: penises, masturbation, vulvas, ejaculation (both male and female), santorum, and so on. The Commons is so supersaturated with porn that explicit content bleeds into places one would never expect it. For example, search for a “wheel” may lead to shortly discovering a photo from a [[BDSM]] torture session. The same goes for “jumping ball,” “bell tolling,” or “electric toothbrush.” Few on Wikimedia would ever want to ban porn or explicit content. A small group of porn aficionados and exhibitionists who use the Commons as their personal playground, are turning the high-minded educational repository into the world’s worst amateur porn hub. Under the pretext of pro free speech, the community perceives the the idea that it should remove images simply because others might find it offensive as highly offensive to their techno-libertarian ethos.<ref>{{cite web |title=How Wikimedia Commons Became A Massive Amateur Porn Hub |author=Kevin Morris |date=26 Jun 2013 |publisher=The Daily Dot |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/how-wikimedia-commons-bec_n_3502688.html |accessdate=1 Sep 2017 |quote=To understand just how inseparable pornography is from Commons culture, look no further than the “Erotica Barnstar,” formerly the “Hot Sex Barnstar,” an award given to Commons users who “tirelessly upload good sexual, nude, and erotic content to Commons.” The star is adorned with three illustrations: a woman sodomizing a man with a dildo (otherwise known as pegging), an erect penis, and a spread vulva. All the source files are available on Wikimedia Commons, of course. The star was nominated for deletion in May, but the Commons community decided to keep it. There is a lot of porn out there to upload, and Commons users want to reward each other for their hard work: At one time, explicit content accounted for 60 of the Commons 100 most-visited pages, including entire categories like “Autofellatio, “Facial cumshot,” and “Female genital piercing.” The exhibition culture is dominated by men, much like the rest of Wikimedia. There are so many dick pics uploaded to Commons every year, in fact, that the site actually calls out the practice in its community guidelines. “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera,” it reads. “If you want to, try to fill a real gap in our collection.”}}</ref>
+
==Hypocrisy and nepotism==
 +
In 2009, a teenager took a couple of photos of himself and posted them to Wikimedia Commons. The first photo was of his bare legs, the second photo was of his nipple. In January 2012 he made a formal request asking Wikipedia commons remove the photos for him. Commons administrators denied his requests three times on the grounds that once he licensed Commons to distribute his photos, he could not revoke that license. Finally, another administrator who does not primarily focus on Commons took pity on the teenager and deleted the photos. In contrast, a director of the Wikimedia UK charity uploaded a bondage photo of himself naked from the waist down. He changed his mind about having that photo publicly available because he was selected to testify on behalf of Wikimedia UK before [[Parliament]], and got one of his Commons administrator friends to quietly delete the image without a debate.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/10/14/wikimedia-needs-your-nipples/|title=Wikimedia needs your nipples|date=October 14, 2013|work=Wikipediocracy|accessdate=March 16, 2014}}</ref>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 11: Line 14:
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
−
*[http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Official website]
+
*[https://commons.wikimedia.org/ Official website]
  
 
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]
 
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]

Latest revision as of 21:28, September 26, 2018

Wikimedia Commons (simply called Commons within Wikimedia projects) is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) that seeks to create a database of "free" media, such as images, sounds, and video. Media stored in Wikimedia Commons can be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia.[1]

Explicit images

Under the pretext of free expression, Wikimedia Commons hosts thousands of sexually graphic videos and images. It is unsuitable as an unsupervised resource for minors.[2]

Copyright issues

The WMF attempts to second-guess the copyright status of photos that are claimed to be copyrighted. In 2011, David J. Slater, a British wildlife photographer, had a monkey grab one of his cameras. Before Slater could recover the camera, the monkey had snapped a number of photos. Slater then publicized his story and copyrighted and licensed the photos. However, an editor uploaded a digital copy of the photo to Wikimedia Commons claiming that the copyright was invalid because the monkey had taken the photo. Slater asked that the photo be removed from Commons because people were downloading and reproducing the image without paying Slater royalties. The WMF denied his request.[3]

Hypocrisy and nepotism

In 2009, a teenager took a couple of photos of himself and posted them to Wikimedia Commons. The first photo was of his bare legs, the second photo was of his nipple. In January 2012 he made a formal request asking Wikipedia commons remove the photos for him. Commons administrators denied his requests three times on the grounds that once he licensed Commons to distribute his photos, he could not revoke that license. Finally, another administrator who does not primarily focus on Commons took pity on the teenager and deleted the photos. In contrast, a director of the Wikimedia UK charity uploaded a bondage photo of himself naked from the waist down. He changed his mind about having that photo publicly available because he was selected to testify on behalf of Wikimedia UK before Parliament, and got one of his Commons administrator friends to quietly delete the image without a debate.[4]

References

  1. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Reuse#Embedding_Commons'_media_in_Wikimedia_projects
  2. ↑ Morris, Kevin. (June 26, 2013) "How Wikimedia Commons Became A Massive Amateur Porn Hub". Huffington Post. Retrieved September 1, 2017
  3. ↑ Kang, Jay. "Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie", New Yorker, August 8, 2014. Retrieved on August 8, 2014. 
  4. ↑ "Wikimedia needs your nipples", Wikipediocracy, October 14, 2013. Retrieved on March 16, 2014. 

External links

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Commons&oldid=1456464"