Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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 alr

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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; org

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Am 17.05.2011 18:36, schrieb Gnangarra: On 18 May 2011 00:22, Tobias Oelgarte > wrote: Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra: On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>> wrote: Laws are the one t

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 18 May 2011 00:22, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra: > > > > On 18 May 2011 00:03, 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 d

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra: On 18 May 2011 00:03, 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 18 May 2011 00:03, 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. > And

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 >>

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Béria Lima 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... After a couple hu

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Don't mix up two different matters. Am 17.05.2011 18:07, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: --- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte //*wrote: If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty. There is more than one way to view this. One could equally

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 d

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty. There is more than one way to view this.  One could equally say that the price we are paying for having your images is the loss offreedom to put a

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 201

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Any proof for this imputation? Am 17.05.2011 17:53, schrieb Gnangarra: On 17 May 2011 23:44, Tobias Oelgarte > wrote: 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > 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 liberty at airports that preven

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

; > From: Chris McKenna > > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia > Commons > > To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" > > Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 15:04 > > On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe > > wrote: &g

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 17 May 2011 23:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > 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 -- GN. Photo Gallery:

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

, Craig Franklin //*wrote: From: Craig Franklin Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54 I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wa

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Chris McKenna wrote: > From: Chris McKenna > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia > Commons > To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" > Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 15:04 > On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 //*wrote: From: Craig Franklin Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discu

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 "f

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >.. > Librarians have a strong professional ethos which rejects censorship. Librarians do not put images like this on their front door. -- John Vandenberg ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

>On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Tobias Oelgarte > wrote: >On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Gnangarra wrote: >> 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 contr

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The images from today and yesterday are: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_imperialis_01.jpg > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg > > If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in terms of ed

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit > of > an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons > to > some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a > rude > shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. On

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > Am 16.05.2011 16:43, schrieb Gnangarra: >> 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 is

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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? Excellen

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Am 17.05.2011 15:26, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: --- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin //*wrote: From: Craig Franklin Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin wrote: From: Craig Franklin Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54 I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Chris McKenna wrote: > From: Chris McKenna > As a separate thread of discussion > from my last message, I note that > despite all the outrage yesterday from some quarters that > we were > featuring works by non-notable Wikimedians on the front > page that we are > doing e

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

As a separate thread of discussion from my last message, I note that despite all the outrage yesterday from some quarters that we were featuring works by non-notable Wikimedians on the front page that we are doing exactly the same today. Before anyone claims that this is not an artistic work, y

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 adher

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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. Central

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty. 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 wrote: > Am 17.05.2011 02:34, schrieb Nei

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

This not about censorship this is about, this is about how we present Commons to a wider audience. This not the work by some recognised artist, nor is it part/segment of from any major work, its just a drawing done by a contributor to Commons. It has no value outside of that context given this it

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 5/16/11 11:37 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > Any action should have a valid reasoning. He exchanged the image with a > rather offending comment to everyone that sees sexuality as an equal > topic to anything else. No, I didn't. This is what I said: "Changing to something that's less fapworth

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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. > > Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ) > That's a no-brainer. They WILL be captured

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

tness or errors! :) On May 16, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna wrote: >> From: Chris McKenna >> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia >> Commons >> To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion L

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna wrote: > From: Chris McKenna > Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia > Commons > To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" > Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 22:21 > On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe >

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Am 16.05.2011 23:20, schrieb Bryan Tong Minh: Op 16 mei 2011 22:53 schreef "Tobias Oelgarte" > het volgende: > > Any > action done without consent (like Jimbo did before) is offensive against > the community, making her mistrusting the WMF, that interfer

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 16 May 2011 16:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > A picture showing a naked woman is natural. Come to Germany and enjoy > some time at a FKK (Freie Körper Kultur, eng. Free body culture) beach. > There is nothing pornographic (sexual) about this. They you might want to spend slightly more time on t

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in that image. If someone > argues > against an image with breasts, it is censorship. > > If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's technically > semi-competent, > but undistinguished Thomas

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Op 16 mei 2011 22:53 schreef "Tobias Oelgarte" < tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> het volgende: > > Any > action done without consent (like Jimbo did before) is offensive against > the community, making her mistrusting the WMF, that interferes with > community decissions. > Your analogy is misplaced

[Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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 expla

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 16 May 2011 16:44, Chris McKenna wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: > No, why would I? > Whether something is a very good example of educational material or not is > completely independent of whether it is used in the main namespace of a > Wikimedia project. Since Wikimedia projects do

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 16 May 2011 16:41, Chris McKenna wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: > >> On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna 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 >> sexua

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Am 16.05.2011 22:39, schrieb Nathan: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKenna 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 cens

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 5/16/11 1:14 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: > > The choice of front-page content is determined by featured pictures. If > you want featured pictures that cannot go on the main page then you have > to define and get consensus on a set of objective criteria that determines > what is and is not acceptbal

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Am 16.05.2011 22:39, schrieb Nathan: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKenna 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 cens

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna wrote: > Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - > to stick to > it's founding principle of being not censored. > > We best respect our end users by doing exactly what we say > we will do - > i.e. provide an uncensored repository of educat

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKenna 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: > So what is "appropriate for children"? How about - 'not likely to get the student at a typical high school sent to offfice for sexual harrassment, inappropriate usage of school resources, or the website as a whole blocked in typical softwa

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 5/16/2011 12:56 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2011, Stephen Bain wrote: >> In this context, applying some sort of 'least surprise' based approach >> to what goes on the main page is simply a reasonable step toward >> protecting a person's right to avoid speech they wish to avoid. > B

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Fred Bauder wrote: > > The morals of American prime time TV are not in the running (murder and > mayhem, but no explicit sexual language), but perhaps common sense > notions of what is appropriate for children might be. (for the picture of > the day featured on the front page,

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Stephen Bain wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Chris McKenna wrote: >> >> Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to >> it's founding principle of being not censored. > > Well actually, the founding principle is giving everyone

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Stan Shebs wrote: > False dichotomy - intelligent choice of front-page content is orthogonal > to choice of collection content. I'm perfectly content for Commons to > have 100,000+ penis photos, indeed a large number starts to make it > statistically interesting, but that doe

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Chris McKenna wrote: > > But who defines what topics are acceptable for a "least surprise" > approach? The community of course, by consensus. > By this principal we should not have on the main page images of humans, > gods, maps of any territory under dispute (Ar

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote: > >>> 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. >> You keep making the same argument, and not actually responding to what >> is being said. Which leaves on

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Am 16.05.2011 22:05, schrieb Stan Shebs: > On 5/16/11 12:43 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: >> 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 fo

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> that doesn't mean I think that changing > PotD to mean "Penis of the Day" is a good idea. > > Stan An interesting "straw man" Fred ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote: >> 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. > You keep making the same argument, and not actually responding to what > is being said. Which leaves one to wonder

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> Firstly, there's no such founding principle of Commons, and secondly, > "not censored" is not in Commons' mission, which is being addressed. > "Uncensored" is not in the mission of Commons, you're rather blatantly > inserting it here. Creating a culture of surprise and shock is not > fulfilling

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 5/16/11 12:43 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: > 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 05/16/2011 12:43 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: > 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 collecti

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Tue, 17 May 2011, Stephen Bain wrote: > > In this context, applying some sort of 'least surprise' based approach > to what goes on the main page is simply a reasonable step toward > protecting a person's right to avoid speech they wish to avoid. > But who defines what topics are acceptable for

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 05/16/2011 12:40 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: > 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 >>> >

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

HITLER!! (Did that work?) - d. ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Chris McKenna wrote: > > Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to > it's founding principle of being not censored. Well actually, the founding principle is giving everyone free access to the sum of human knowledge, which is not quite

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote: > 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. I don't know wher

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > At least you could strike the following from the list: > Japan, India and > Turkey. In > > 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 im

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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: >> http://commons.wikimedia.o

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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 devel

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 non-

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Béria Lima 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 >> that's a staff a

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 t

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 lar

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 _

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 5/16/2011 1:42 PM, Jeremy Baron wrote: > > 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?

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

> 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". T

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM, 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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 a

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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.

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 avai

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

On 5/16/2011 11:07 AM, Chris McKenna wrote: > 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. I've actually

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons (reverted back)

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 > The captions were reverted as well. > _ > *Béria Lima* > (351) 925 171 484 > > *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a pos

Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

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 s

  1   2   >