--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.


There is more than one way to view this. 

One 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, and a 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". 

Andreas

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> 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
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


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l