Talk:Wikimedia Commons

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)


 * @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)
 * 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)

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)

Number of geolocated images in Wikimedia Commons outdated since=2021-01-26
Mateus2019 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)