One of the arguments being made on the GG list is that the Commons don't need no stinkin' rules like the rest of the Wikipædiæ supposedly do.
QUOTE
Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.comThu Feb 17 02:19:01 UTC 2011
Oliver Keyes wrote:
> This is true, but doesn't help with many projects.
> Some projects don't have WP:V as a core principle —
> what do we do with them? "inappropriate" images
> on Commons would not be bound by such standards.
I see Commons as different in nature from Wikipedia. Pages like this one
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jean shortsare in many ways an embarrassment for an educational project.
On the other hand, that page is pretty much the same as what you get when you do a Google image search for jean shorts:
www.google.co.uk/images?q="jean+shorts"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1333&bih=929Commons is just what it is. But I would like to retain the idea that Wikipedia is an educational resource. Wikipedia can link to Commons, including its collection of pornographic images, in articles on these topics.
Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?
Hint. 501(â€câ€)(3)