Tobias<br><br>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. <br><br>The issue isnt hosting the image its about where its displayed.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 May 2011 22:32, Tobias Oelgarte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com">tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Just logged in, so please bear with the possible wrong entry place.<br>
<br>
I strongly disagree with the removal. Not because that it is an image<br>
that i created. Because this is some kind of censorship, that goes<br>
strictly against the aims of the project itself. Some topics are fine<br>
and anybody can laugh about them, for some topics nobody cares and some<br>
topics causing confusion, hate and are a general nuisance. The later<br>
mostly because of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge.<br>
<br>
But which kind of world will we describe? The world how it is - the<br>
truth? Or do we want to select some mild topics and enjoy little bunnies<br>
on a field with dozens of flowers, while one house away bombs fall and<br>
the doughters of the family begging for money? Isn't it a bit ridiculous<br>
to select topics and to show only the bright sides?<br>
<br>
Im just wondering why illustrations of war machines are ok, while<br>
anything that is related to sexual nature is considerd as evil. Some<br>
saying that they couldn't tell there children what such images are<br>
about. But what about a picture of a gun? Can you explain to your<br>
children, why people kill each other? You should and could at least try<br>
to explain. The earilier the better. Kids have an open mind, that i miss<br>
so much in this project.<br>
<br>
Reading the words of Sarah Stierch, someone could assume that a picture<br>
of a naked male is fine. Do we get more female contributers by treating<br>
them as some special, out of the oridinary? At the last meetings in<br>
Germany i met several women, most complaining about this rather "useless<br>
campaing", that they even found "discriminating".<br>
<br>
Back to the topic itself. Did you even know, that half of the mangaka<br>
are females? Works like "Kodomo no Jikan" are written by female authors.<br>
Sexuality is a primary topic. No one could life without it. Depictions<br>
of sexuallity are known for thousands of years. And that is the point<br>
where i start wondering. While old works are seen as something relevant,<br>
new works aren't. Why not? They are from our time. In the time we life.<br>
<br>
Sorry for my English. But English isn't my main language.<br>
<br>
Tobias Oelgarte<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 16.05.2011 16:24, schrieb Chris McKenna:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote:<br>
><br>
>> The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant,<br>
>> unlike all the other examples you cited.<br>
> Please cite your sources for the (lack of) artistic, historic, or cultural<br>
> significance for this image and all the other examples cited.<br>
><br>
>> The only reason it's featured is<br>
>> because it's sexually arousing to anime fanboys who happen to dominate the<br>
>> culture of Wikimedia Commons.<br>
> Citation needed for a /very/ offensive remark.<br>
><br>
>> I don't need to crawl into a semantic<br>
>> rabbit-hole to defend this observation.<br>
> Why? Please be objective, preferably include references to reliable<br>
> sources.<br>
><br>
>> I think its obvious to any<br>
>> reasonable person. If the image would be embarrassing to pull up in front of<br>
>> a classful of students, it shouldn't be on the Commons Main Page.<br>
> Please define "reasonable person" in an objective, culturally neutral way.<br>
> Please list an objective set of culturally neutral criteria that would<br>
> allow any image to be safely displayed to any given group of people in a<br>
> way that does not introduce censorship or cultural bias.<br>
><br>
> "Not censored" means just that. If you aren't happy that some images that<br>
> offend you (or you find offensive on others' behalf) might be displayed<br>
> then you should not use Wikimedia Commons.<br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
><br>
> ----<br>
> Chris McKenna<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org">cmckenna@sucs.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna" target="_blank">www.sucs.org/~cmckenna</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,<br>
> but with the heart<br>
><br>
> Antoine de Saint Exupery<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Commons-l mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org">Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Commons-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org">Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>GN.<br>Photo Gallery: <a href="http://gnangarra.redbubble.com">http://gnangarra.redbubble.com</a><br>Gn. Blogg: <a href="http://gnangarra.wordpress.com">http://gnangarra.wordpress.com</a><br>
<div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>