On Mon, 16 May 2011, Gnangarra wrote: > On 16 May 2011 22:24, Chris McKenna <cmcke...@sucs.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> >> "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. >> >> Thats the type of response that is driving people away from Commons, many > people spend a lot of time and effort trying to get GLAM organisations to > donate to our collections but these places have strict contractual > conditions on what employees can view and such images are outside those > conditions. That doesnt mean we shouldnt host them or even consider them for > FP, but value do we place on a couple of cartoon images getting to appear on > the main page compared to the donation 10,000s of images. > > Why is creating a barrier to peoples participation is good thing? >
If these organisations have policies that are incompatible with Wikimedia Commons then they should not be working with Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps there should be a censored subset of Wikimedia Commons that such organisations can work with. As all the works are free content they can be shared between the censored and uncensored repositories. Our goal is to increase access to free content, getting more images in our collection is only one possible means of doing so, not an end in itself. I don't know how well such a censored subset would work, given that every organisation's content policies I am aware of are different to each other, and the technical challenges associated with censorship, but I am no expert. Chris ---- Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna 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
