On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Do it in your freetime and not at work? > > Such a simplistic and ignorant response, I just pointed out for GLAMs to contribute the people doing it are at work its part of their work. > Am 16.05.2011 16:43, schrieb Gnangarra: > > Tobias > > Please explain how does one participate when their employment contract > specifically states that viewing of sexually explicit material over the > internet is a dismissable offense. > > The issue isnt hosting the image its about where its displayed. > > On 16 May 2011 22:32, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> Just logged in, so please bear with the possible wrong entry place. >> >> I strongly disagree with the removal. Not because that it is an image >> that i created. Because this is some kind of censorship, that goes >> strictly against the aims of the project itself. Some topics are fine >> and anybody can laugh about them, for some topics nobody cares and some >> topics causing confusion, hate and are a general nuisance. The later >> mostly because of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge. >> >> But which kind of world will we describe? The world how it is - the >> truth? Or do we want to select some mild topics and enjoy little bunnies >> on a field with dozens of flowers, while one house away bombs fall and >> the doughters of the family begging for money? Isn't it a bit ridiculous >> to select topics and to show only the bright sides? >> >> Im just wondering why illustrations of war machines are ok, while >> anything that is related to sexual nature is considerd as evil. Some >> saying that they couldn't tell there children what such images are >> about. But what about a picture of a gun? Can you explain to your >> children, why people kill each other? You should and could at least try >> to explain. The earilier the better. Kids have an open mind, that i miss >> so much in this project. >> >> Reading the words of Sarah Stierch, someone could assume that a picture >> of a naked male is fine. Do we get more female contributers by treating >> them as some special, out of the oridinary? At the last meetings in >> Germany i met several women, most complaining about this rather "useless >> campaing", that they even found "discriminating". >> >> Back to the topic itself. Did you even know, that half of the mangaka >> are females? Works like "Kodomo no Jikan" are written by female authors. >> Sexuality is a primary topic. No one could life without it. Depictions >> of sexuallity are known for thousands of years. And that is the point >> where i start wondering. While old works are seen as something relevant, >> new works aren't. Why not? They are from our time. In the time we life. >> >> Sorry for my English. But English isn't my main language. >> >> Tobias Oelgarte >> >> >> Am 16.05.2011 16:24, schrieb Chris McKenna: >> > On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> > >> >> The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally >> significant, >> >> unlike all the other examples you cited. >> > Please cite your sources for the (lack of) artistic, historic, or >> cultural >> > significance for this image and all the other examples cited. >> > >> >> The only reason it's featured is >> >> because it's sexually arousing to anime fanboys who happen to dominate >> the >> >> culture of Wikimedia Commons. >> > Citation needed for a /very/ offensive remark. >> > >> >> I don't need to crawl into a semantic >> >> rabbit-hole to defend this observation. >> > Why? Please be objective, preferably include references to reliable >> > sources. >> > >> >> I think its obvious to any >> >> reasonable person. If the image would be embarrassing to pull up in >> front of >> >> a classful of students, it shouldn't be on the Commons Main Page. >> > Please define "reasonable person" in an objective, culturally neutral >> way. >> > Please list an objective set of culturally neutral criteria that would >> > allow any image to be safely displayed to any given group of people in a >> > way that does not introduce censorship or cultural bias. >> > >> > "Not censored" means just that. If you aren't happy that some images >> that >> > offend you (or you find offensive on others' behalf) might be displayed >> > then you should not use Wikimedia Commons. >> > >> > Chris >> > >> > ---- >> > Chris McKenna >> > >> > cmcke...@sucs.org >> > www.sucs.org/~cmckenna <http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna> >> > >> > >> > The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, >> > but with the heart >> > >> > Antoine de Saint Exupery >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Commons-l mailing list >> > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Commons-l mailing list >> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > > > > -- > GN. > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing > listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > > -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l