On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKenna <cmcke...@sucs.org> wrote:
> I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting > any sort of lackadaiscial attitude? > As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who > want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other > people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the > rights to an uncensored collection of free media. > > Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does > not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place. > > ---- > Chris McKenna > > cmcke...@sucs.org > www.sucs.org/~cmckenna Someone reading this conversation might almost think that "uncensored images" is the defining core value of Commons. If that's actually the case, some rebranding is necessary. I imagine you could certainly attract an audience with a site advertised as being uncensored, but I was always under the impression that Commons and Wikimedia were out for a broader, more fully clothed audience. What's funny is that you actually think you are arguing against attempts at censorship; what this demonstrates more than anything else is that you have deeply misunderstood censorship and what it means. Unfortunately, you are obviously not nearly open minded enough to learn from any explanation. I will try to make one point: You are not in any sense the proprietor, gatekeeper, authority or representative of Commons the project or its community. You have no right to tell people "If you don't like it, get out" as you have done several times. They are as free to express their opinion as you are, and many (as you've no doubt noticed) disagree with you. So why not take a break from telling people to go away? Nathan _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
