|--- On Tue,
17/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a
loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as
There is more than one way to view this.
could equally say that the price we are paying for
having your images is the loss of
freedom to put a truly educational image on
the main page. It is embarrassment for John
and Craig. It includes that people who could provide
tremendous support to our project
may not provide it,
resulting in the loss
of hundreds of thousands of images more valuable
and notable than your original art,
perception of Foundation projects as puerile and not
worthy of serious attention.
But then you think Commons
is "bullshit" anyway -- apart from the fact that it
gives you a
platform to broadcast your
fan art to the world, and shout "censorship".
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 <email@example.com>
Am 17.05.2011 02:34, schrieb Neil
> On 5/16/11 8:21
PM, Cary Bass wrote:
Another board for decisions? Just leave the
communities alone. They can
>> 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
> So some people are going to have to
make the sacrifices to change the
> 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
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.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
Commons-l mailing list
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----