Technicalities are the best way to avoid discussion (you came to the wrong department, we've discussed it already, come back tomorrow etc.) I have never heard one single good explanation why a caricature which shows a known person masturbate (and placing it next to his portrait, so everyone who looks for his portrait is forced to see it!) or why a caricature which praises terrorists who blow up buses and call for more actions like that, should be considered educational material. I didn't get an answer why paraphrases of this caricatures are banned, even though the caricaturist himself allowed it by releasing his works to the public domain. Whether the administrators mean it or not, there is a strong sense of corruption here. There is a strong feeling as if the Commons took a political stand, not only by hosting these cartoons, but also by the way they are categorized, and by banning opposite opinions. Even though many people say privately they object these caricatures, and even though at least one of them was voted for deletion, some administrators insist on keeping them, without providing proper explanations. Most of the explanations resort to technicalities (as we've seen right now), some of them claim that the Commons are not censored while they censor the opposite opinions.
I want to know how many people on this mailing list actually support keeping this caricatures, and what they think about the way they categorized. I want to hear a good explanation (for a change) why they are considered educational. I would say even more - the offensive nature of these caricatures demands that these questions be raised periodically, so we know for sure that the controversial decision to keep these problematic files is not coincidental nor accidental, but is indeed accepted on the community.
Dror K
2009/6/7 Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net:
Technicalities are the best way to avoid discussion (you came to the wrong department, we've discussed it already, come back tomorrow etc.)
Are you bringing this up with the idea that it is perhaps tied to the Pikiwiki problems?
If so, you're not really going to convince anyone.
- d.
As far as I remember, I didn't make this linkage here. But I do need to know if the inclusion, and the prominence, given to these caricatures on the Commons indeed reflects a community decision. I have a strong feeling that this is merely a decision of a few Latuff's enthusiasts, some of whom are administrators. I suspect a large portion of the community prefer these cartoons were either removed or given less prominence, not only due to their political nature, but also due to their very bad taste and especially their violence of the human dignity principle. I, BTW, could not find any discussion about this on this mailing list. If there were one, I suspect it was short and not satisfying.
Dror K
Dror Kamir wrote:
As far as I remember, I didn't make this linkage here. But I do need to know if the inclusion, and the prominence, given to these caricatures on the Commons indeed reflects a community decision. I have a strong feeling that this is merely a decision of a few Latuff's enthusiasts, some of whom are administrators. I suspect a large portion of the community prefer these cartoons were either removed or given less prominence, not only due to their political nature, but also due to their very bad taste and especially their violence of the human dignity principle. I, BTW, could not find any discussion about this on this mailing list. If there were one, I suspect it was short and not satisfying.
Dror K
I don't think you should raise more controversial issues until the Pikiwiki one is closed. This doesn't seem high priority being an old thing.
Now, about you bring up two different items: -If the images should be deleted. -The image categorization.
What do you think on making a subcategory 'Criticism of X' (or even Latuff cartoons if they're enough) to move those pictures one level below the 'serious images'?
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
corruption here. There is a strong feeling as if the Commons took a political stand, not only by hosting these cartoons, but also by the way they are categorized, and by banning opposite opinions.
Don't play the censorship card. No opinions are banned nor people are bing banned for what they believe.
The point is: it has been discussed. Lenghtly.
And suddenly you say "This has to be discussed again. Now" without a rationale, just because it needs to be discussed. Now.
Things don't work that way.
Let's talk about censorship for a moment -
Mr. Latuff released his caricatures to the public domain in order to increase their visibility. The Commons' community was generous enough to accept his contribution. Part of this policy is allowing others to make derivative works of the released caricatures. I took this opportunity and responded to Latuff's cartoons by modifying his cartoons in a legal way, and uploading them to the Commons. Uploading derivative works of files already published on the Commons is a common habit. My uploads were deleted, first by claiming I breached Latuff's copyright. When that was proved to be wrong, some administrators told me I wasn't a notable artist, however, as I mentioned, uploading derivative works is a common practice even when done by simple users like me. Then the administrators resorted to the claim that I made a provocation. Why did the administrators assumed good faith in the case of the person who uploaded Lattuff's cartoons (and in masses), and didn't let me even enjoy the benefit of the doubt?
So, we should talk about censorship.