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
commons-l
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
.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
commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54
I'm going to add my voice to the yeah
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
Thanks Steven - I appreciate that you fought the good fight and I'm
disgusted that comments about TA were some of the key reasons for this
feature.
While I've seen my fair share of anime videos (Tentacles and /all/ that
involves) - It was an epic fail when I was looking up an image with my
Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@... writes:
Many of us are annoyed by such featuring.
I also had a face-palm moment when I saw this image -- mostly because, out of
all of the tens of thousands of superb illustrations and photographs we have,
this is the best we can do?
This piece does not seem to be
Phoebe,
Its not discussed..
The process is very simple. You add a picture for Featured
pictureshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picturesif
it makes the vote and become featured picture you or anybody can just
add
it to be a POTD there is no process there anymore. Just add and
The place where the debates occur is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates. After
an image is promoted from there, anyone can put it on the Main Page at any
time (as explained by Huib). I think having more people involved in the FPC
process would be great.
Ryan
I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any
'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person
associated with Commons.
I did not know what to do with the translated captions, so I blanked
them out without deleting them. (The only language I know
On May 16, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any
'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person
associated with Commons.
+3!!
-Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I changed the picture.
...
So now we have a half-nude male instead of a half-nude female. Oh well. :-)
--
http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
___
Commons-l
On 5/16/11 9:33 AM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkarne...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I changed the picture.
...
So now we have a half-nude male instead of a half-nude female. Oh well. :-)
That was deliberate. Actually if I could have found an
Hi Aaron and everyone,
This is a really painful thing for me to read. As a scholar, my research
work has been based around the representation of Indigenous peoples of
North America in media and culture. I sincerely doubt that any of the
tribal members I know would say that this is a valid
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
Phoebe,
Its not discussed..
The process is very simple. You add a picture for Featured pictures if it
makes the vote and become featured picture you or anybody can just add it to
be a POTD there is no process there
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise
inapropriate for featured picture status.
If you want to any keep images off the main page that are sexy,
pornographic, offensive or any other arbitrary
For what its worth this image was tame compared to many that have recently
been put through the FP process, to satisfy the not censored ethos it was
decide with much dispute that such images can be FP. I raised the concern
that having such images impares a persons ability to participate thus
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any
'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person
associated with Commons.
Actually, given that the template was cascade
On 5/16/2011 2:46 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
This gap does exist, in fact an entire mailing list (which I have cc'd
here and I encourage anyone interested in the topic to join) was
created to work towards bridging this gap. This was triggered by an
article titled Define Gender Gap? Look Up
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise
inapropriate for featured picture status.
The image is also not artistically,
*Actually, given that the template was cascade protected by virtue of it
being on the main page, only administrators can edit it. You're not an
administrator on Commons, but you do have a staff flag. Therefore I'd say
that's a staff action.*
That said, changed the picture without any
: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:04
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about
The image is derivative, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:1672_G%C3%A9rard_de_Lairesse_-_Allegory_of_the_Freedom_of_Trade.jpg
but its theme of editorial freedom is culturally significant, at least to
the Wikimedia movement.
Fred
The image is also not artistically,
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
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for
non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about
anime/manga, (female)
On 16 May 2011 15:24, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Please cite your sources for the (lack of) artistic, historic, or cultural
significance for this image and all the other examples cited.
Thats asking someone to prove a negative. If you wish
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
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.
On 16 May 2011 15:29, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for
non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
This image can be used in
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia
Commons
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:46
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
Do it in your freetime and not at 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
On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
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
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia
Commons
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:46
Could you explain what you mean with GLAM? Not anyone is used to such terms.
Greatings from Tobias Oelgarte
Am 16.05.2011 16:52, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Do it in your freetime
Pornography is defined as:
The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the
sole
intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not
pornographic.
Correct, mere nudity is neither sexual nor pornographic. The
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
Béria Lima changed the image back to the original On the Edge graphic.
Given that there are some people who think I abused my staff status
and/or didn't wait for consensus, I think I will bow out at this point,
rather than get into a revert war on the Main Page.
(However, note that the
The captions were reverted as well.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.***
2011/5/16 Neil Kandalgaonkar
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 15:29, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for
non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
On 5/16/11 7:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris McKennacmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
Your statement isn't credible.
I don't understand what is not credible about my
kitschy.
lg, Cecil
--- On *Mon, 16/5/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org* wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.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: Monday
On 16 May 2011 16:27, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Only repesenting images of the Fluffy Bunnies section would have another
side effect. It would not show the diversity of topics people can
contribute to. Even sexual related topics need new authors.
Go through
On 16 May 2011 17:19, Cecil cecila...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons.
Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the
restriction that a file has to be educational.
I really do hope you are not an administrator on Commons,
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 16:16, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
Commons does not exist solely to provide images to be used here and now on
online Wikimedia projects. Or are you arguing that every image that is not
currently in use is not educational?
Your
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Cecil cecila...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons.
Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the
restriction that a file has to be educational.
Related to another comment posted earlier, this
Am 16.05.2011 17:20, schrieb geni:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKennacmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not
pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary
sexual characteristics is not sexual?
A picture
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Cecil cecila...@gmail.com wrote:
And as a girl (or more a long-grown woman) with no real interest in mangas my
opinion is that the image has nice colours, is cleanly made and in general
aesthetically pleasing. Only complaint: it is a bit kitschy.
lg, Cecil
Yeah, a but
I don't want to comment on the NSFW or educational nature of the image since
they are excellent arguments already being made.I just want to ask if
Anime/Hentai images are featured on main page, irrespective of the content?
Theo
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Aaron Adrignola
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about
anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes,
depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates
surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
If this is
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Cecil cecila...@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for
non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons.
Commons is a repository
Am 16.05.2011 17:38, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/16/2011 9:04 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org
mailto:cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is
about?
The image is not
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Sarah Stierch wrote:
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about
anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes,
depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates
surrounding any of these topics, and almost
On 5/16/2011 10:32 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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
On 5/16/2011 10:43 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
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 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Pornography is defined as:
The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole
intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not
pornographic.
I'm not here, as I'm
On 5/16/2011 11:00 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Okay, my wife and I will then encourage all the unsigned garage bands we
know to upload their original songs to Commons. We know a good dozen,
altogether about 50 people. We will nominate our songs for featured status.
We will vote for each others'
On 5/16/2011 11:19 AM, Cecil wrote:
2011/5/16 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com mailto:jayen...@yahoo.com
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a
gallery for non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
Actually,
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org 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.
So if I think goatse.cx shouldn't
Am 16.05.2011 18:03, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/16/2011 10:32 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Could you explain what you mean with GLAM? Not anyone is used to such
terms.
Greatings from Tobias Oelgarte
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
--
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
I agree with Stan Shebs. I would hope that his view is one that most
of my fellow editors could embrace.
--Walter
On May 16, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Stan Shebs wrote:
On 5/16/11 7:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris McKennacmcke...@sucs.org
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Pornography is defined as:
The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole
intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not
pornographic.
It's
And Beria has my support. If all of us could modify the main page content
because we dont like it... what a chaos.
2011/5/16 Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com
The captions were reverted as well.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer
Hi Paul,
How was that implemented?
How, if at all, do new contribs on the upstream commons propagate to your
fork?
Does your site allow participation or it's read-only? If read-write how, if
at all, do contribs flow back to commons?
How much manual work is required for all of that? Is this
Am 16.05.2011 19:17, schrieb Paul Houle:
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Pornography is defined as:
The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole
intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it
On 05/16/2011 08:19 AM, Stan Shebs wrote:
The photo of the day, and in general the front page, is all about making
good first impressions. All the people who value uncensored images have
already seen Commons by now, and the choice of front page content
doesn't affect them.
We need an
On 05/16/2011 10:16 AM, Manuelt15 wrote:
Hopefully one day you'll understand that US standards don't
and _*NEVER WILL*_ apply to other countries, so live with it.
Please don't confuse what is not much of Western Europe and some of
Latin America sensibilities with US standards. This image
On 05/16/2011 11:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that something is wrong with prime-time TV?
Fred
I don't much watch television.
- and -
It's not the mission of Commons to force a change of broadly common
sensibilities.
Cary
___
On 05/16/2011 11:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that something is wrong with prime-time TV?
Fred
I don't much watch television.
- and -
It's not the mission of Commons to force a change of broadly common
sensibilities.
Cary
There is no good reason to conform to
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
It's not the mission of Commons to force a change of broadly common
sensibilities.
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no
matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all), of any
one group, no matter how
On 05/16/2011 11:57 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no
matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)
Pander is a word doesn't in the least bit describe what anyone is
suggesting or in fact doing. (and outside the
On 05/16/2011 11:57 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no
matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)
Pander is a word doesn't in the least bit describe what anyone is
suggesting or in fact doing. (and outside the
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, given that the template was cascade protected by virtue of it
being on the main page, only administrators can edit it. You're not an
administrator on Commons, but you do have a staff flag. Therefore I'd say
On 5/16/11 11:56 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
There is no good reason to conform to blue-nose standards.
This is where I strongly disagree. Rightly or wrongly, the reality is
that first-time visitors will make an overall conclusion about Commons
based on what they see on the front page, and that
Am 16.05.2011 21:07, schrieb Cary Bass:
On 05/16/2011 11:57 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no
matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)
Pander is a word doesn't in the least bit describe what anyone is
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
The world wide audience is another matter.
And this audience is not well reflected by the lackadaisical attitude
toward end users that pervades our otherwise wonderful Commons community.
Cary
___
Commons-l
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion
about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature
this image without any concern:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
That is a
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
The world wide audience is another matter.
And this audience is not well reflected by the lackadaisical attitude
toward end users that pervades our otherwise wonderful Commons community.
Cary
Yes, we have a long way to go in terms of developing
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion
about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature
this image without any concern:
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
