<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Am 16.05.2011 17:38, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DD144ED.4040907@sarahstierch.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 5/16/2011 9:04 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikxqJj+AM4wiS2z8w2ZkekYT7T1Lw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org">cmckenna@sucs.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;"> Am I alaone in completely failing to
understand what the fuss is about?<br>
The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or
otherwise<br>
inapropriate for featured picture status.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
The image is also not artistically, historically, or
culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you
cited. The only reason it's featured is because it's
sexually arousing to anime fanboys who happen to dominate
the culture of Wikimedia Commons. I don't need to crawl into
a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. I think
its obvious to any reasonable person. If the image would be
embarrassing to pull up in front of a classful of students,
it shouldn't be on the Commons Main Page.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As with a number of us - this is a big concern. While I had
originally posted this to the mailing list for gender gap
discussion, this is another of the reasons. <br>
<br>
Like I said, which I'm having a feeling wasn't even read by many -
you cannot pull THAT front page of Commons up in a classroom or
educational environment and have it celebrated by a middle school
teacher. Some of her kids might think it's "cool" or "hot", but,
if I'd be one pissed parent. All it takes is one pissed parent,
who overreacts, to report to the news that "my kid was shown porn
at school/museum/church/camp/after school workshops/whatever' and
all hell will break lose. <br>
<br>
#wikilove,<br>
<br>
Sarah<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Is this the only reason to justify that something can be shown or
not? What about weapons, war scenes or even propaganda shots by the
US army? Not one seams to care about this topics. Now we have an
image of a fictional figure with bare breasts and it is a problem.
How do you justify to show military propaganda?<br>
<br>
Tobias<br>
</body>
</html>