Could you explain what you mean with GLAM? Not anyone is used to such terms.

Greatings from Tobias Oelgarte

Am 16.05.2011 16:52, schrieb Gnangarra:

On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte <> wrote:
Do it in your freetime and not at work?

Such a simplistic and ignorant response, I just pointed out for GLAMs to contribute the people doing it are at work its part of their work.

Am 16.05.2011 16:43, schrieb Gnangarra:

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.

The issue isnt hosting the image its about where its displayed.

On 16 May 2011 22:32, Tobias Oelgarte <> wrote:
Just logged in, so please bear with the possible wrong entry place.

I strongly disagree with the removal. Not because that it is an image
that i created. Because this is some kind of censorship, that goes
strictly against the aims of the project itself. Some topics are fine
and anybody can laugh about them, for some topics nobody cares and some
topics causing confusion, hate and are a general nuisance.  The later
mostly because of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge.

But which kind of world will we describe? The world how it is - the
truth? Or do we want to select some mild topics and enjoy little bunnies
on a field with dozens of flowers, while one house away bombs fall and
the doughters of the family begging for money? Isn't it a bit ridiculous
to select topics and to show only the bright sides?

Im just wondering why illustrations of war machines are ok, while
anything that is related to sexual nature is considerd as evil. Some
saying that they couldn't tell there children what such images are
about. But what about a picture of a gun? Can you explain to your
children, why people kill each other? You should and could at least try
to explain. The earilier the better. Kids have an open mind, that i miss
so much in this project.

Reading the words of Sarah Stierch, someone could assume that a picture
of a naked male is fine. Do we get more female contributers by treating
them as some special, out of the oridinary? At the last meetings in
Germany i met several women, most complaining about this rather "useless
campaing", that they even found "discriminating".

Back to the topic itself. Did you even know, that half of the mangaka
are females? Works like "Kodomo no Jikan" are written by female authors.
Sexuality is a primary topic. No one could life without it. Depictions
of sexuallity are known for thousands of years. And that is the point
where i start wondering. While old works are seen as something relevant,
new works aren't. Why not? They are from our time. In the time we life.

Sorry for my English. But English isn't my main language.

Tobias Oelgarte

Am 16.05.2011 16:24, schrieb Chris McKenna:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>> The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant,
>> unlike all the other examples you cited.
> Please cite your sources for the (lack of) artistic, historic, or cultural
> significance for this image and all the other examples cited.
>> The only reason it's featured is
>> because it's sexually arousing to anime fanboys who happen to dominate the
>> culture of Wikimedia Commons.
> Citation needed for a /very/ offensive remark.
>> I don't need to crawl into a semantic
>> rabbit-hole to defend this observation.
> Why? Please be objective, preferably include references to reliable
> sources.
>> I think its obvious to any
>> reasonable person. If the image would be embarrassing to pull up in front of
>> a classful of students, it shouldn't be on the Commons Main Page.
> Please define "reasonable person" in an objective, culturally neutral way.
> Please list an objective set of culturally neutral criteria that would
> allow any image to be safely displayed to any given group of people in a
> way that does not introduce censorship or cultural bias.
> "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.
> Chris
> ----
> Chris McKenna
> The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
> but with the heart
> Antoine de Saint Exupery
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list

Commons-l mailing list

Photo Gallery:
Gn. Blogg:
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list

Commons-l mailing list

Photo Gallery:
Gn. Blogg:
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list