I agree with Stan Shebs. I would hope that his view is one that most
of my fellow editors could embrace.
On May 16, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Stan Shebs wrote:
On 5/16/11 7:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand
what the fuss is
Your statement isn't credible.
I don't understand what is
not credible about my statement? I
not understand why anybody finds this image objectionable.
OK then, if you really do not understand, your best course of action
here is to keep quiet, take what others say at face value, and spend
some time to really absorb what it means. You are not going to come
with a brilliant comment that causes all readers to abandon their
cherished values and switch to sharing yours.
The photo of the day, and in general the front page, is all about
good first impressions. All the people who value uncensored images
already seen Commons by now, and the choice of front page content
doesn't affect them. So what we're really talking about is making a
good first impression on everybody else, and to do that we should
images that are appealing across the broadest range of people
worldwide. That means G-rated, that means no advocacy in current
conflicts, that means no blood, no nasty diseases, etc. Once people
"in the door" so to speak, then they can choose whether they want to
into the Hall of Fluffy Bunnies or the Dungeon of Sexual Atrocities
Being Committed by People with Oozing Skin Rashes. :-)
(There are days when I'm not really being paid enough to review latest
Commons-l mailing list