Talk:Wikimedia Commons: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 12:08, 5 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikimedia Commons article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 730 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 21 April 2007, see discussion.
Speedy keep, 7 August 2007, see discussion.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Wikipedia Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Help

The article says (with sources) that «The site has been criticized for hosting large amounts of amateur pornography, often uploaded by exhibitionists who exploit the site for personal gratification, and who are enabled by sympathetic administrators. In 2012, BuzzFeed described Wikimedia Commons as "littered with dicks".» We know this is plainly false (we have more photos of trams, locator maps, and shoelace tiying diagrams than any kind of porn, even when you include the raphaëlites in it) — could this fact be independently sourced? Tuvalkin (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin as long as no reliable sources that can refute the BuzzFeed article on Commons, the passage is here to stay. It is not the job of Wikipedia to "whitewash" what reliable sources state about Commons, per WP:NEUTRAL. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even when it’s patently false. Okay, understood. Waiting over here for the moment when WP:NEUTRAL starts accepting flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers as «reliable sources». Because we don’t do “whitewashing”, no sir-ee! Tuvalkin (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi everyone! I am in a course about Wikipedia and for our final project, we were challenged to address a problem in Wikipedia, conduct research on it and then report our findings with a suggestion for improvement. For the project, my partner and I decided to address the issue of Wikimedia Commons and how the discoverability and searchability need to improve. I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, so if you have a better place, please let me know!! Please go to my talk page if you would be willing to chat with me about your problems with Wikimedia Commons and how we can address those. Thanks in advance! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of geolocated images in Wikimedia Commons outdated since=2021-01-26

Mateus2019 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{skiptotalk}}
-{{Talk header|age=2|units=years}}
+{{Talk header}}
 {{Old AfD multi
 | date2      = 21 April 2007
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 | page    = Wikimedia Commons
 }}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
-{{WPBS|1=
-{{WikiProject Websites |class=C |importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Mid}}
-{{WikiProject Wikipedia |class=C |importance=top}}
+{{WikiProject Wikipedia |importance=top}}
-{{WikiProject Media |class=C |importance=}}
+{{WikiProject Media |importance=}}
 }}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 }}
-== Porn ==
+== Help ==
 The article says (with sources) that «The site has been criticized for hosting large amounts of amateur pornography, often uploaded by exhibitionists who exploit the site for personal gratification, and who are enabled by sympathetic administrators. In 2012, BuzzFeed described Wikimedia Commons as "littered with dicks".» We know this is plainly false (we have more photos of trams, locator maps, and shoelace tiying diagrams than any kind of porn, even when you include the raphaëlites in it) — could this fact be independently sourced? [[User:Tuvalkin|Tuvalkin]] ([[User talk:Tuvalkin|talk]]) 16:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Tuvalkin|Tuvalkin]] as long as no reliable sources that can refute the BuzzFeed article on Commons, the passage is here to stay. It is not the job of Wikipedia to "whitewash" what reliable sources state about Commons, per [[WP:NEUTRAL]]. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 06:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
-yea [[User:Milatha|Milatha]] ([[User talk:Milatha|talk]]) 12:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
+::Even when it’s patently false. Okay, understood. Waiting over here for the moment when [[WP:NEUTRAL]] starts accepting flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers as «reliable sources». Because we don’t do “whitewashing”, no sir-ee! [[User:Tuvalkin|Tuvalkin]] ([[User talk:Tuvalkin|talk]]) 17:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 == Question ==