Looking from the outside i have to assume that the projects leadership
is more and more only interested in donations and salaries. Should we
expect advertisements, proprietary licenses in the future? Sometimes i
have the feeling that the millions are wasted, while technically
Wikipedia is still in the stoneage. Do we need all this projects with
doubtable results to begin with? Do we start to beg for content? Or did
we start we start with the intention to create a project in that
everyone can participate on his own will, in it's free time?
Im not only talking about _my_ image. Im also talking about the future
of Wikipedia and Commons as a free project. What if a professional
photographer would take an very well educational image of Shibari? Isn't
it equal to a portrait of a president in its value?
All you care about are the donors, not the writers. That seams to be
fact. So lets put some honey on the mainpages and install an leading to
a fly-donor-trap at the end. Is that really all you care about?
Am 17.05.2011 17:17, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/17/2011 7:05 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes.
Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
We rely on donations - whether small cultural donations or monetary
donations or major media contributions. There is always going to be
some type of "freedom lost" when dealing with all donors of anytime.
And I'm sure /anyone/ who has worked in the non-profit sector in /the
majority/ of countries can attest to that.
I assume that if people wish to see those of us who believe in quality
educational images (hence the Commons mission) 'go away' which has
been declared multiple times, then perhaps those seeking to showcase
images with little educational merit and deep creator connection (dare
I say conflict of interest, it is Tobia's image anyway, so of course
he wants it up there, who wouldn't in his situation) should perhaps
showcase their own artwork or personal imagery on their own website.
Or flickr, which I have been using to showcase images I wish to not
release into CC or images of my self, friends and stupid things, on.
I agree with Gnangarra - one tasteless work, which has been questioned
by Wikipedians/medians around the world, is not worth the risk of
losing major donors - whether monetary or culturally.
Sarah
Am 17.05.2011 10:22, schrieb Gnangarra:
Is this picture worth more than 137,000 news images,
Is this picture worth the loss of xontributions from GLAM organisations
Is this picture worth the cost of denying other contributors the
opportunity to participate.
On 17 May 2011 16:16, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
<mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
Am 17.05.2011 02:34, schrieb Neil Kandalgaonkar:
> On 5/16/11 8:21 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
>> We need an active group of contributors who represent at the
very least
>> some cross-section of not only Commons contributors but of
interested
>> re-users of Commons content to actively monitor and maintain
the POTD.
>> This is not the first time that something inappropriate for
Main Page
>> content has appeared and I doubt it will be the last.
> That is definitely a practical solution. POTD are scheduled
long in
> advance, so that could solve the problems here pretty quickly.
The image
> in question is, IMO, unambiguously inappropriate for Commons,
and this
> shouldn't have been a difficult debate.
>
> On the other hand it feels a bit wrong to me. In that case
we're asking
> groups that are relatively underrepresented in Wiki culture to
take on
> the role of policing. I feel like they ought to have some
rights to a
> welcoming environment as a baseline. That said, in a wiki
context, it
> seems to be impossible to achieve such baseline freedoms, as
long as the
> offenders have large amounts of free time.
>
> So some people are going to have to make the sacrifices to
change the
> culture.
>
> Another worry: if there's a "quality control board", officially or
> unofficially, they can start to take that role too seriously
or become
> captured by various radical factions. But I guess we have to
take that
> chance.
>
>
Another board for decisions? Just leave the communities alone.
They can
handle it very well on their own. Any board i know failed in so many
points. An good example from the German Wikipedia is the
"Schiedsgericht". This is the last call if some users can't be
stopped
from offending each other. But this board isn't trusted at all and
constantly breaks down. Just because it is seen as needless.
What im seeing here is the construction of an government which isn't
even democratic, getting very close to a dictatorship. Or as we
said in
the GDR: One party, elected by itself.
Tobias
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, The Nation's Capital
<http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Regional_Ambassadors_Current>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
--
Sarah Stierch Consulting
Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________
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
