On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
That sounds more like an indictment of the
organization of images, rather
than the images themselves.
DM
On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard <pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
"Commons is meant to be a collection of
freely-licensed media, not a
dumping
ground for all media that happens to be
free."
What's the difference?
"Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence,
with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground"
implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without
regard to their presumed usefulness.
--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
considered
that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining
culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their
habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant. Hosting
a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline
voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad