The Tragedy of Wikipedia's Commons

[Hersch]

Discuss.

[mac]

What is the image supposed to illustrate?

[Michaeldsuarez]

What is the image supposed to illustrate?

Is that person a Commons user? A photo of an innocent person unconnected to Commons shouldn't be used to illustrate the article. Are you guys poking fun at the appearance of some random dude? Does that person deserve this?

[Randy from Boise]

I'd go with a photo of Matt Buck ("Commons Administrator No. 1") if such a licensed image were available.

Hint, hint.

RfB

[EricBarbour]

I'd go with a photo of Matt Buck ("Commons Administrator No. 1") if such a licensed image were available.

There's a photo of him on his Flickr, licensed under cc-sa 2.0.......

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbuck007/6485522929/

[Ming]

Just don't google "zeta toys", OK? (NSFW, but duh....)

link

[EricBarbour]

Just don't google "zeta toys", OK? (NSFW, but duh....)
link

Modeled after animal penises, and marketed to "furries".
http://www.zoofur.com/

[Anroth]

And yet, still less creepy than when I was doing data-entry for an online sex shop, and one of their products was modeled on a french baguette. Size, shape and colouring. I was only 20 at the time and my mind boggled at the physicalities of it.

[Randy from Boise]

Hey Matt, do you think these "two young people" would be happy to learn that you were taking pictures of them from behind?

Overheard conversation as they retreat, "So gross! Did you see him? ... staring at my tits. Ewwww!"[/quote]

My own view is that Matt Buck, Wnt, Cirt, and that whole krew are to images at Commons what Russavia is to the written word at English-Wikipedia.

Obvious trolls are obvious.

RfB

[HRIP7]

Mod. note: Some posts and replies thereto removed. Men aren't fair game for comments that focus purely on their physical attributes either. Let's stick to more substantial issues than mere personal appearance, please, if you would, gentlemen.

[Stan Dixon]

Was there any particular reason why the picture was chosen to illustrate the oped?

[lilburne]

Was there any particular reason why the picture was chosen to illustrate the oped?

It was chosen on the same criteria as the images were added to the Mohammed article: eye candy.

[Hersch]

For this article and also the "Child Pornography" article, I looked for photos of faces that I thought might convey a certain juvenile and/or maniacal emotional state, like that which I imagine the typical demented Commons user might possess. These are metaphors, dudes. I didn't consider it appropriate to use actual exhibitionist or illegal child porn images to illustrated the articles.

[Michaeldsuarez]

For this article and also the "Child Pornography" article, I looked for photos of faces that I thought might convey a certain juvenile and/or maniacal emotional state, like that which I imagine the typical demented Commons user might possess. These are metaphors, dudes. I didn't consider it appropriate to use actual exhibitionist or illegal child porn images to illustrated the articles.

I believe that simple imagery would work better than images of identifiable persons, especially identifiable persons unconnected to Wikimedia:

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/06/05/the-other-way-around/

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/24/qworty-the-fallout/

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/04/01/why-doesnt-wikipedia-have-an-article-about-denise-milani/