On Mon, 16 May 2011, Gnangarra wrote:
On 16 May 2011 22:24, Chris McKenna
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
"Not censored" means just that. If you aren't happy that some images that
offend you (or you find offensive on others' behalf) might be displayed
then you should not use Wikimedia Commons.
Thats the type of response that is driving people away from Commons, many
spend a lot of time and effort trying to get GLAM organisations to
donate to our collections but these places have strict contractual
conditions on what employees can view and such images are outside those
conditions. That doesnt mean we shouldnt host them or even consider them for
FP, but value do we place on a couple of cartoon images getting to appear on
the main page compared to the donation 10,000s of images.
Why is creating a barrier to peoples participation is good thing?
If these organisations have policies that are incompatible with Wikimedia
Commons then they should not be working with Wikimedia Commons.
Perhaps there should be a censored subset of Wikimedia Commons that such
organisations can work with. As all the works are free content they can be
shared between the censored and uncensored repositories. Our goal is to
increase access to free content, getting more images in our collection is
only one possible means of doing so, not an end in itself.
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
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery