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 in the stoneage. Do we need all this projects with doubtable results to begin with? Do we start to beg for content? 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?
Im not only talking about _my_ image. Im also talking about the future of Wikipedia and Commons as a free project. What if a professional photographer would take an very well educational image of Shibari? Isn't it equal to a portrait of a president in its value?
All you care about are the donors, not the writers. That seams to be fact. So lets put some honey on the mainpages and install an leading to a fly-donor-trap at the end. Is that really all you care about?
Am 17.05.2011 17:17, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
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 "freedom lost" when dealing with all donors of anytime. And I'm sure /anyone/ who has worked in the non-profit sector in /the majority/ of countries can attest to that.
I assume that if people wish to see those of us who believe in quality educational images (hence the Commons mission) 'go away' which has been declared multiple times, then perhaps those seeking to showcase images with little educational merit and deep creator connection (dare I say conflict of interest, it is Tobia's image anyway, so of course he wants it up there, who wouldn't in his situation) should perhaps showcase their own artwork or personal imagery on their own website.
Or flickr, which I have been using to showcase images I wish to not release into CC or images of my self, friends and stupid things, on.
I agree with Gnangarra - one tasteless work, which has been questioned by Wikipedians/medians around the world, is not worth the risk of losing major donors - whether monetary or culturally.
Sarah
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 denying other contributors the opportunity to participate.
On 17 May 2011 16:16, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
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 the POTD. >> This is not the first time that something inappropriate for Main Page >> content has appeared and I doubt it will be the last. > That is definitely a practical solution. POTD are scheduled long in > advance, so that could solve the problems here pretty quickly. The image > in question is, IMO, unambiguously inappropriate for Commons, and this > shouldn't have been a difficult debate. > > On the other hand it feels a bit wrong to me. In that case we're asking > groups that are relatively underrepresented in Wiki culture to take on > the role of policing. I feel like they ought to have some rights to a > welcoming environment as a baseline. That said, in a wiki context, it > seems to be impossible to achieve such baseline freedoms, as long as the > offenders have large amounts of free time. > > So some people are going to have to make the sacrifices to change the > culture. > > 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. > > Another board for decisions? Just leave the communities alone. They can handle it very well on their own. Any board i know failed in so many points. An good example from the German Wikipedia is the "Schiedsgericht". This is the last call if some users can't be stopped from offending each other. But this board isn't trusted at all and constantly breaks down. Just because it is seen as needless. What im seeing here is the construction of an government which isn't even democratic, getting very close to a dictatorship. Or as we said in the GDR: One party, elected by itself. Tobias _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l-- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, The Nation's Capital http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Regional_Ambassadors_Current Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l