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.comwrote:
Am
One party, elected by itself.
Tobias
It's a coalition, as, indeed, the SED was; the unifying element is that
an alternative to consensus is necessary to achieve their goals. Goals
include excellence, universal acceptability of content, better public
relations, and control over content.
I've been trying to stay out of this today, following yesterday's clear
demonstration that some people are prepared to sacrifice the neutrality
and uncensored nature of Commons in favour of not offending some people.
However, I see yet again calls for the application of common sense and
Am 17.05.2011 15:26, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin /cr...@halo-17.net/*wrote:
From: Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on
Wikimedia Commons
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
Few
people on this list who are not Danish would have predicted that cartoons
published in a national newspaper would lead to rioting on the streets of
Copenhagen. It is surely common sense that satirical cartoons are going
to
be uncontroversial in a liberal western democracy?
Excellent
If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in terms of educational
vs.
artistic content, nothing I say is likely to make any difference.
Frankly,
it's not even worth discussing.
Andreas
It's not a matter of anyone being unwilling; some people don't agree with
you. An image of an
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
the importanceof manga in the overall sum of human knowledge is actually
minute.
The importance of any single subject in the overall sum of human knowledge
is actually minute.
Presuming you actually mean the relative importance, the value of manga is
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
--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia
Commons
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 15:04
On Tue,
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
The Diva comment is far older then this recent development. It has
nothing todo with this current case.
Am 17.05.2011 17:24, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
I've never denied not being a Diva ;-)
-Sarah
On 5/17/2011 9:26 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin
On 17 May 2011 23:44, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
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?
We did but that image being on the main page has placed a barrier to
participation
On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is
as worthy as liberty.
While we are at it
do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law?
do you appreciate the denial of
Any proof for this imputation?
Am 17.05.2011 17:53, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 17 May 2011 23:44, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Or did we start we start with the intention to create a project in
that everyone can participate
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing.
You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look
away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated,
strong wording comparison.
Am 17.05.2011 17:56, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 17 May
On 05/17/2011 09:03 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other
thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you
can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not
appreciated, strong wording comparison.
That
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
You have your opinion and this topic is 190 e-mail long (190 mails in 4
treads, in 3 mailing list). After all that attention i believe everyone
knows your (and many other people) opinion.
Beria brings up a good point...
Am 17.05.2011 18:07, schrieb Cary Bass:
On 05/17/2011 09:03 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other
thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you
can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other
thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but
I think that enough has been said on this subject. Clearly there are
people who believe this image doesn't belong in the Commons, or
doesn't belong as a Featured Picture, or doesn't belong on the Main
Page. And there are people who believe the opposite.
Since the damage (if any) has already been
On 18 May 2011 00:22, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing.
You can't jump from a
Am 17.05.2011 18:36, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:22, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
your offended by remarks you say my opinion is supressing you but your
opinion is preventing others from participating. so to give you what you
want must deny others.
The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable
resource of useful, open source media content;
I think that enough has been said on this subject. Clearly there are
people who believe this image doesn't belong in the Commons, or
doesn't belong as a Featured Picture, or doesn't belong on the Main
Page. And there are people who believe the opposite.
Since the damage (if any) has already
And when people look away they very rarely look back, so what comparison
do
you want denial of liberty is denial of liberty, you chose the words you
choose to argue its censorship and liberty, why should I not be able to
express my opinion surely you dont want to see me censored and my
25 matches
Mail list logo
