FYI
Regards Tinu Cherian
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com Date: Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:33 AM Subject: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects < gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
-- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham tinucherian@gmail.comwrote:
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
I feel exactly the same way. This is an insult to the people who value the educational spirit of Commons.
I attempted to argue that the image didn't meet the featured criteria of Commons, but was drowned out by voters such as the one who argued without irony, "{{Support}} I like her big tits".
Whether or not Commons should host such images is really a separate argument than whether we want to feature topless anime as the best of the content we have.
Steven
I agree that this selection does not further our goals of increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects. Thanks to Sarah for speaking.
Regards, Walter
On May 15, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham <tinucherian@gmail.com
wrote:
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
I feel exactly the same way. This is an insult to the people who value the educational spirit of Commons.
I attempted to argue that the image didn't meet the featured criteria of Commons, but was drowned out by voters such as the one who argued without irony, "{{Support}} I like her big tits".
Whether or not Commons should host such images is really a separate argument than whether we want to feature topless anime as the best of the content we have.
Steven _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
(Are those henna tattoos?) The picture is ok.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Siegmund" siegmund@astro.washington.edu To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on WikimediaCommons
I agree that this selection does not further our goals of increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects. Thanks to Sarah for speaking.
Regards, Walter
On May 15, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham <tinucherian@gmail.com
wrote:
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
I feel exactly the same way. This is an insult to the people who value the educational spirit of Commons.
I attempted to argue that the image didn't meet the featured criteria of Commons, but was drowned out by voters such as the one who argued without irony, "{{Support}} I like her big tits".
Whether or not Commons should host such images is really a separate argument than whether we want to feature topless anime as the best of the content we have.
Steven _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Thanks Steven - I appreciate that you fought the good fight and I'm disgusted that comments about T&A were some of the key reasons for this feature.
While I've seen my fair share of anime videos (Tentacles and /all/ that involves) - It was an epic fail when I was looking up an image with my 65 year old father and that was the image on the front page. The first question he asks is: "This is the organization you volunteer for?"
Images like this have their place, and despite the artistic skill of the contributor it is really disappointing that this was chosen to showcase quality media on Commons. it sets back the work of those of us working towards broadening gender equality and female involvement in Wikimedia.
I also am proud of my new title of being a Regional Ambassador and I am working towards becoming a GLAM Ambassador - images like this being showcased do 'few wonders' for my efforts in regards to fighting the uphill battle to show Wikipedia, Commons, etc. as reliable and quality starting points for research, development and cultural dissemination.
#wikilove,
Sarah
On 5/15/2011 10:48 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham <tinucherian@gmail.com mailto:tinucherian@gmail.com> wrote:
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg I mean really? /facepalm This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons. #wikilove, SarahI feel exactly the same way. This is an insult to the people who value the educational spirit of Commons.
I attempted to argue that the image didn't meet the featured criteria of Commons, but was drowned out by voters such as the one who argued without irony, "{{Support}} I like her big tits".
Whether or not Commons should host such images is really a separate argument than whether we want to feature topless anime as the best of the content we have.
Steven
Commons is not censored. It's a beautiful scene and it would be expected that the an imaginary tribal member would not have the American sensitivities to toplessness. Some images may offend. Some articles may offend. We're not going to compromise our core values just to try to close a "gap" that some feel is such a big issue, if it even exists.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham tinucherian@gmail.comwrote:
FYI
Regards Tinu Cherian
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com Date: Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:33 AM Subject: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects < gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
-- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 16 May 2011 03:53, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is not censored.
However most projects are mature enough to establish quiet lists of featured content that will not make it to the main page.
It's a beautiful scene and it would be expected that the an imaginary tribal member would not have the American sensitivities to toplessness.
An imaginary tribal member who's skin and hair colour are almost exclusively limited to northern latitudes where such clothing would be considered impractical. I'm sorry but I think the national geographic secured exclusive rights to that argument some years ago.
There is not in any case any need to bring purely american standards into this.
Some images may offend. Some articles may offend. We're not going to compromise our core values just to try to close a "gap" that some feel is such a big issue, if it even exists.
1)It does exist. Denial is not a helpful response
2)not putting certain images on the main page doesn't impact our values on way or the other.
So you're arguing that the woman is topless in order to conform to realistic portrayals of indigenous people? That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've heard in years.
Every few months one of the usual suspects nominates porn to be featured on Commons and we have to go through the same circus-show all over again. It's always porn for a male heterosexual audience, and it's always defended with cries against the evils of censorship and disingenuous arguments about the "educational value" of the image. I'm all for Commons hosting a wide array of uncensored images, but I'm tired of seeing the Main Page being used as a fap gallery for fanboys. Whether you agree with it or not, featuring such images is distasteful to a lot of people - and not necessarily because they are "prudish" or "religious". I don't see how exercising editorial judgement about our public image and being respectful of women is "compromising our core values". Driving people away from the site and eroding our reputation as a serious educational resource do nothing to improve the project. If you want to fight against censorship, help defend the "Rape", "Rape statistics", and "False accusation of rape" articles against antimisandry.com. Or better yet, file a DMCA counter-notice to restore the links in the "Texas Instruments signing key controversy" article. For some reason people don't seem as concerned about the real incidents of censorship on our projects.
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.comwrote:
Commons is not censored. It's a beautiful scene and it would be expected that the an imaginary tribal member would not have the American sensitivities to toplessness. Some images may offend. Some articles may offend. We're not going to compromise our core values just to try to close a "gap" that some feel is such a big issue, if it even exists.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham < tinucherian@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI
Regards Tinu Cherian
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com Date: Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:33 AM Subject: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects < gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
-- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
So you're arguing that the woman is topless in order to conform to realistic portrayals of indigenous people? That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've heard in years. (...)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Many of us are annoyed by such featuring. This is not about "content being hosted" we all agree that sexual images belong to commons, this is about main page.
But beyond that, what could we do in order to prevent it?
Create a policy that forbids sexual images being featured? Have the Foundation pass a resolution? Talk it on the pump?
Or perhaps, getting more people involved on the community selection process.
Other ideas?
Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@...> writes:
Many of us are annoyed by such featuring.
I also had a face-palm moment when I saw this image -- mostly because, out of all of the tens of thousands of superb illustrations and photographs we have, this is the best we can do?
This piece does not seem to be educational in nature (and I don't mean "an education in how to use Inkscape"), and it is fairly poor art in all ways except technical proficiency with the tools used to create it. I think it would be more appreciated and more appropriate on one of the many sites designed for hosting amateur art; and we would do a better job of fulfilling our own particular mission by highlighting some of the unquestionably stunning and important works of art in our collection, of which there are many (for instance, we have paintings by Dürer and Cezanne that aren't yet featured).
Or perhaps, getting more people involved on the community selection process.
This seems like a good plan. But I have a question for Commonistas: where? I was looking for the page where the "picture of the day" is discussed and chosen, and I can't find it. Can someone explain how this process works?
best, Phoebe
Phoebe,
Its not discussed..
The process is very simple. You add a picture for Featured pictureshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picturesif it makes the vote and become featured picture you or anybody can just add it to be a POTD there is no process there anymore. Just add and wait.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_day/Instructions
Best,
Huib* * 2011/5/16 phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com
Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@...> writes:
Many of us are annoyed by such featuring.
I also had a face-palm moment when I saw this image -- mostly because, out of all of the tens of thousands of superb illustrations and photographs we have, this is the best we can do?
This piece does not seem to be educational in nature (and I don't mean "an education in how to use Inkscape"), and it is fairly poor art in all ways except technical proficiency with the tools used to create it. I think it would be more appreciated and more appropriate on one of the many sites designed for hosting amateur art; and we would do a better job of fulfilling our own particular mission by highlighting some of the unquestionably stunning and important works of art in our collection, of which there are many (for instance, we have paintings by Dürer and Cezanne that aren't yet featured).
Or perhaps, getting more people involved on the community selection
process.
This seems like a good plan. But I have a question for Commonistas: where? I was looking for the page where the "picture of the day" is discussed and chosen, and I can't find it. Can someone explain how this process works?
best, Phoebe
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
The place where the debates occur is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates. After an image is promoted from there, anyone can put it on the Main Page at any time (as explained by Huib). I think having more people involved in the FPC process would be great.
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
Phoebe,
Its not discussed..
The process is very simple. You add a picture for Featured pictureshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picturesif it makes the vote and become featured picture you or anybody can just add it to be a POTD there is no process there anymore. Just add and wait.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_day/Instructions
Best,
Huib
2011/5/16 phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com
Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@...> writes:
Many of us are annoyed by such featuring.
I also had a face-palm moment when I saw this image -- mostly because, out of all of the tens of thousands of superb illustrations and photographs we have, this is the best we can do?
This piece does not seem to be educational in nature (and I don't mean "an education in how to use Inkscape"), and it is fairly poor art in all ways except technical proficiency with the tools used to create it. I think it would be more appreciated and more appropriate on one of the many sites designed for hosting amateur art; and we would do a better job of fulfilling our own particular mission by highlighting some of the unquestionably stunning and important works of art in our collection, of which there are many (for instance, we have paintings by Dürer and Cezanne that aren't yet featured).
Or perhaps, getting more people involved on the community selection
process.
This seems like a good plan. But I have a question for Commonistas: where? I was looking for the page where the "picture of the day" is discussed and chosen, and I can't find it. Can someone explain how this process works?
best, Phoebe
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- Kind regards,
Huib Laurens WickedWay.nl
Webhosting the wicked way.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
Phoebe,
Its not discussed..
The process is very simple. You add a picture for Featured pictures if it makes the vote and become featured picture you or anybody can just add it to be a POTD there is no process there anymore. Just add and wait.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_day/Instructions
Best,
Huib
Thanks all! That explains why I couldn't find a process :)
It sounds like the place to engage is featured picture discussions, then; and perhaps developing picture of the day guidelines that take into some of the considerations that people have brought up about the potential for main page images to shock or be inappropriate for viewing in a wide variety of settings. As others have pointed out, the question of whether something is good for main-page placement is different from the general question of inclusion (or even featuring, though it seems they're one and and the same on commons).
-- phoebe
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about? The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.
If you want to any keep images off the main page that are "sexy", "pornographic", "offensive" or any other arbitrary label you wish to choose, please start by defining in a neutral, objective and culturally independent manner every such label you want to use. Secondly, please explain how this is compatible with Commons being not censored. Thirdly, please define precisely what it is you are trying to achieve and why. Please do so in an objective and culturally independent manner. Fourthly, explain why this needs to be done with reference facts and evidence. Please explain how this is a cross-cultural issue. Fifthly, please explain how your proposal would help achieve what you are trying to achieve. Please be specific and give facts and evidence. Sixthly, please demonstrate that this is compatible with Common's mission and it will not impact it's goal. If other policies need changing please repeat steps 4 and 5 for each such policy. Seventhly, gain consensus for your proposal.
So far in this debate the only thing I've seen is vauge statements that boil down to "we should not have images of female toplessness on the main page because there is a gender gap", "My grandfather wouldn't like it" and "Think of the children"
The second two of these are "I don't like it" reasons and deserve no further consideration. None of them make any attempt at points 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 7. The first reason "because there is a gender gap" doesn't explain why this is relevant to the image.
Commons has featured pictures that will be offensive to many different people in many different cultures. Please explain why this is any more an issue for this image than http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Starved_girl.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Namibie_Himba_0720a.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sandboarding_in_Dubai.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sadko.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-19...
or any other image you care to mention.
Please explain how your comments are neutral and take into account the sensitivities of all cultures and special interest groups, not just your own.
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about? The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.
The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you 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. I don't need to crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. 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.
Ryan Kaldari
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for non-notable art. It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion. A.
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:04
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise
inapropriate for featured picture status.
The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you 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. I don't need to crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. 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.
Ryan Kaldari
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for non-notable art. It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion. A.
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes, depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
It therefore seems to me to be a very good example of educational material that Commons should be hosting.
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 16 May 2011 15:29, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for non-notable art. It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion. A.
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes, depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
The image could be printed on paper and used to construct a Pykrete derivative. Are you going to try arguing that it's bulletproof as well?
It therefore seems to me to be a very good example of educational material that Commons should be hosting.
If it was actually a very good example it is to be expected that it would appear in the article name space of some of our projects. So that the fact it seems to you to be a very good example merely makes your judgment questionable.
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 15:29, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for non-notable art. It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion. A.
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes, depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
The image could be printed on paper and used to construct a Pykrete derivative. Are you going to try arguing that it's bulletproof as well?
That's a completely irrelevant statement as any image printed on paper could be used in such a manner. Not every image could be used to illustrate such topics though.
It therefore seems to me to be a very good example of educational material that Commons should be hosting.
If it was actually a very good example it is to be expected that it would appear in the article name space of some of our projects. So that the fact it seems to you to be a very good example merely makes your judgment questionable.
Commons does not exist solely to provide images to be used here and now on online Wikimedia projects. Or are you arguing that every image that is not currently in use is not educational? One of my images on Commons, that afaik has never been used on a project, has been used to illustrate a report by the Law Society on the law regarding level crossings in England and Wales. This report was published in 2010 but the photograph was uploaded in 2005.
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 16 May 2011 16:16, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Commons does not exist solely to provide images to be used here and now on online Wikimedia projects. Or are you arguing that every image that is not currently in use is not educational?
Your argument was specifically that it was a "very good example of educational material". Do you wish to withdraw from that position?
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 16:16, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Commons does not exist solely to provide images to be used here and now on online Wikimedia projects. Or are you arguing that every image that is not currently in use is not educational?
Your argument was specifically that it was a "very good example of educational material". Do you wish to withdraw from that position?
No, why would I? Whether something is a very good example of educational material or not is completely independent of whether it is used in the main namespace of a Wikimedia project.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 16 May 2011 16:44, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote: No, why would I? Whether something is a very good example of educational material or not is completely independent of whether it is used in the main namespace of a Wikimedia project.
Since Wikimedia projects do tend to have an educational objective if they have chosen not to use material you think is a very good example of "very good example of educational material" you are either wrong or they are stunningly incompetent. The former seems rather more likely.
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 15:29 On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons
as a gallery for non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for
self-promotion.
A.
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes, depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
It therefore seems to me to be a very good example of educational material that Commons should be hosting.
Okay, my wife and I will then encourage all the unsigned garage bands we know to upload their original songs to Commons. We know a good dozen, altogether about 50 people. We will nominate our songs for featured status. We will vote for each others' songs (purely on artistic merit); so with 50 people, achieving featured status shouldn't be too difficult.
We will then nominate our sound or video files to appear as featured media of the day on the Commons main page.
I promise you all of this will be valuable content; any of these songs could serve to illustrate Foundation-hosted educational content on -
* home recording
* music software
* drums
* guitar
* electric guitar
* bass guitar
* electric violin
* electric viola
* glockenspiel
* stage lighting
* garages
* voice
* vocal technique
* mouth
* hand (close-up fretwork)
* finger (again, close-up fretwork)
* obscene lyrics
* musical genres such as punk, hip-hop, art punk, post-punk, pop, etc.
* neighbourhood disputes
* musical activism
* self-promotion
If anyone objects, we will accuse them of censorship, and of cultural fascism directed against punk and hip-hop, both of which are widely recognised art forms that Commons should cover.
Andreas
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Okay, my wife and I will then encourage all the unsigned garage bands we know to upload their original songs to Commons. We know a good dozen, altogether about 50 people. We will nominate our songs for featured status. We will vote for each others' songs (purely on artistic merit); so with 50 people, achieving featured status shouldn't be too difficult.
We will then nominate our sound or video files to appear as featured media of the day on the Commons main page.
I am not familar with what criteria (if any) are used to judge whether sounds are worthy of featured status on Commons, but if the aim is to showcase high quality work released under a free license, then I don't see why they should not be uploaded or gain featured status. If they gain featured status then they should be selectable for featuring on the main page, subject to consensus and any other requirements for sounds (again it's not an area I'm familiar with). I would hope that if they are featured they are spread out temporally so as to maintain a variety of featured sounds just as we do with images.
Obviously sockpuppetting and meatpuppetting are not allowed and consensus isn't a vote, but I don't see why quality free examples of garage music, home recording, etc should not be on Commons.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 5/16/2011 11:00 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Okay, my wife and I will then encourage all the unsigned garage bands we know to upload their original songs to Commons. We know a good dozen, altogether about 50 people. We will nominate our songs for featured status. We will vote for each others' songs (purely on artistic merit); so with 50 people, achieving featured status shouldn't be too difficult.
Sounds awesome Andreas, let's start a WikiProject:Our Friends Lo-Fi Bands
=)
Punks not dead!
#wikilove,
Sarah
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes, depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
If this is what is being utilized as a quality image to be used as an example of /contemporary art/ then a large part of my cultural heart just died.
This coming fro a man who has a St. Ex quote as his sig!
-Sarah
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Sarah Stierch wrote:
This image can be used in educational encyclopaedia articles about anime/manga, (female) toplessness, contemporary art, fictional landscapes, depictions of humans in art, art produced on computers, debates surrounding any of these topics, and almost certainly many other uses too.
If this is what is being utilized as a quality image to be used as an example of /contemporary art/ then a large part of my cultural heart just died.
This is just as much a quality image that could be used as an example of "contemporary art" as an image of simliar quality in any other genre produced contemporously.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
2011/5/16 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for non-notable art.
It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons. Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the restriction that a file has to be educational.
And as a girl (or more a long-grown woman) with no real interest in mangas my opinion is that the image has nice colours, is cleanly made and in general aesthetically pleasing. Only complaint: it is a bit kitschy.
lg, Cecil
--- On *Mon, 16/5/11, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org* wrote:
From: Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:04
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.orghttp://mc/compose?to=cmckenna@sucs.org
wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about? The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.
The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you 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. I don't need to crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. 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.
Ryan Kaldari
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttp://mc/compose?to=Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 16 May 2011 17:19, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons. Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the restriction that a file has to be educational.
I really do hope you are not an administrator on Commons, since this exact restriction is one of the basic rules on Commons. See < http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE#Must_be_realistically_useful_for... Commons is _not_ “a repository for media of all kind”. < http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:NOT%3E
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons. Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the restriction that a file has to be educational.
Related to another comment posted earlier, this section [1] also notes that images in use by projects are considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, but those that are not and which are judged to be not educational can be deleted.
I've successfully nominated several hundred personal images of users for deletion using this criterion, as they were not in use.
The proper procedure if this image is disliked would be to see if it falls within one of the examples [2] of items that would be out of scope if unused. It can then be nominated for deletion.
However, as already seen, whether an unused image is educational is subject to quite a bit of debate.
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_anoth...
[2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples
I don't want to comment on the NSFW or educational nature of the image since they are excellent arguments already being made.I just want to ask if Anime/Hentai images are featured on main page, irrespective of the content?
Theo
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons. Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the restriction that a file has to be educational.
Related to another comment posted earlier, this section [1] also notes that images in use by projects are considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, but those that are not and which are judged to be not educational can be deleted.
I've successfully nominated several hundred personal images of users for deletion using this criterion, as they were not in use.
The proper procedure if this image is disliked would be to see if it falls within one of the examples [2] of items that would be out of scope if unused. It can then be nominated for deletion.
However, as already seen, whether an unused image is educational is subject to quite a bit of debate.
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_anoth...
[2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote:
And as a girl (or more a long-grown woman) with no real interest in mangas my opinion is that the image has nice colours, is cleanly made and in general aesthetically pleasing. Only complaint: it is a bit kitschy.
lg, Cecil
Yeah, a but like Thomas Kincade in manga. A.
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Cecil cecilatwp@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for non-notable art. It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
A.
Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons. Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the restriction that a file has to be educational.
For reference, here is the mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation*: ---o0o--- The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. ---o0o--- If Commons' mission is no longer to "collect and develop educational content", then whyis it still under the umbrella of the Foundation? Andreas * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
On 5/16/2011 11:19 AM, Cecil wrote:
2011/5/16 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com mailto:jayen466@yahoo.com>
There seems to be a worrying tendency to treat Commons as a gallery for non-notable art. It's an educational project, not a vehicle for self-promotion. A.Actually, Wikipedia is the educational project, not Commons. Commons is a repository for media of all kind. There is nowhere the restriction that a file has to be educational.
I guess I have misunderstood the welcome page of Commons for years now:
Wikimedia Commons is a*media file repository*making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone,in their own language http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Language_policy. It acts as a common repository for the various projects of theWikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/, but you do not need to belong to one of those projects to use media hosted here. The repository is created and maintained not by paid archivists, but by volunteers. The scope of Commons is set out on theproject scope http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scopepages.
#wikilove,
Sarah
The image is derivative, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:1672_G%C3%A9rard_de...
but its theme of editorial freedom is culturally significant, at least to the Wikimedia movement.
Fred
The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you 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. I don't need to crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. 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.
Ryan Kaldari _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:46 The image is derivative, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:1672_G%C3%A9rard_de...
but its theme of editorial freedom is culturally significant, at least to the Wikimedia movement.
Fred,
I am not sure I follow you correctly here, so do tell me if I misunderstood.
You are (perhaps ironically) suggesting that Niabot's original manga-style artwork encapsulates a value that's important to the Wikimedia movement.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
If so, how about featuring an undiscovered garage band's post-punk song celebrating, say, freedom from censorship, on the Commons main page? Would we do this, as an educational illustration of the post-punk/protest song/garage band cultures?
Is it the purpose of the Commons main page to inform the world at large about the musical and artistic talent within the Wikimedia community?
I thought our mission was providing educational material on such things as have *already* attracted the attention of educators.
Andreas
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:46 The image is derivative, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:1672_G%C3%A9rard_de...
but its theme of editorial freedom is culturally significant, at least to the Wikimedia movement.
Fred,
I am not sure I follow you correctly here, so do tell me if I misunderstood.
You are (perhaps ironically) suggesting that Niabot's original manga-style artwork encapsulates a value that's important to the Wikimedia movement.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
If so, how about featuring an undiscovered garage band's post-punk song celebrating, say, freedom from censorship, on the Commons main page? Would we do this, as an educational illustration of the post-punk/protest song/garage band cultures?
Is it the purpose of the Commons main page to inform the world at large about the musical and artistic talent within the Wikimedia community?
I thought our mission was providing educational material on such things as have *already* attracted the attention of educators.
Andreas
Surprisingly, you do misunderstand. The image is a modern allegory of liberty, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:1672_G%C3%A9rard_de...
Bourgeois liberty. The notion that individual liberty trumps imposition of social norms. Some may disagree, but it is a value of the Wikimedia movement, often expressed in the slogan "Wikipedia is not censored!".
Fred
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
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
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
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Tobias
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 tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
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
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Do it in your freetime and not at work?
Am 16.05.2011 16:43, schrieb Gnangarra:
Tobias
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 <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> 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 > > cmckenna@sucs.org <mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org> > www.sucs.org/~cmckenna <http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna> > > > 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@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
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:
Tobias
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 tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
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
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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 listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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 <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> 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:Tobias 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 <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com <mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>> 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 > > cmckenna@sucs.org <mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org> > www.sucs.org/~cmckenna <http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna> > > > 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@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Could you explain what you mean with GLAM? Not anyone is used to such terms.
Greatings from Tobias Oelgarte
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Another gendergap thread... this really makes me sick, is all this gendergap thing just to justify in what WMF waste all the millions of dollars from fundraiser? (since only a small part goes to the servers side) I'm out of this list. And remember, if you wanna reach "consensus" on something, discuss in the local wiki with the local community, not in a mailing list.
Hopefully one day you'll understand that US standards don't and *NEVER WILL * apply to other countries, so live with it.
2011/5/16 Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Could you explain what you mean with GLAM? Not anyone is used to such terms.
Greatings from Tobias Oelgarte
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
-- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch -- Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 05/16/2011 10:16 AM, Manuelt15 wrote:
Hopefully one day you'll understand that US standards don't and _*NEVER WILL*_ apply to other countries, so live with it.
Please don't confuse what is not "much of Western Europe and some of Latin America" sensibilities with "US standards". This image conveys a sense of sexuality that would not be featured on the prime time television time slot by most national standards; and the quality of it is certainly unexpected for the front page of a project of an educational nature.
While Commons may contain images from a broad variety of categories, including those of graphic content, one should maintain the principal of least surprise, and not place images with the tendency to shock a large portion of its audience into unexpected places. Have some reasonable amount of respect for your audience, if this project is to ever be considered with any degree of seriousness.
Cary
Cary
On 05/16/2011 10:16 AM, Manuelt15 wrote:
Hopefully one day you'll understand that US standards don't and _*NEVER WILL*_ apply to other countries, so live with it.
Please don't confuse what is not "much of Western Europe and some of Latin America" sensibilities with "US standards". This image conveys a sense of sexuality that would not be featured on the prime time television time slot by most national standards; and the quality of it is certainly unexpected for the front page of a project of an educational nature.
While Commons may contain images from a broad variety of categories, including those of graphic content, one should maintain the principal of least surprise, and not place images with the tendency to shock a large portion of its audience into unexpected places. Have some reasonable amount of respect for your audience, if this project is to ever be considered with any degree of seriousness.
Cary
Did it ever occur to you that something is wrong with prime-time TV?
Fred
On 05/16/2011 11:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that something is wrong with prime-time TV?
Fred
I don't much watch television.
- and -
It's not the mission of Commons to force a change of broadly common sensibilities.
Cary
On 05/16/2011 11:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that something is wrong with prime-time TV?
Fred
I don't much watch television.
- and -
It's not the mission of Commons to force a change of broadly common sensibilities.
Cary
There is no good reason to conform to blue-nose standards.
Fred
On 5/16/11 11:56 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
There is no good reason to conform to blue-nose standards.
This is where I strongly disagree. Rightly or wrongly, the reality is that first-time visitors will make an overall conclusion about Commons based on what they see on the front page, and that conclusion in turn affects decisions about whether to contribute the stashes of old photos to Commons, to another site not committed to freeness, or simply to forget about them and not contribute at all.
To look at it another way, we already pick and choose what goes on the front page - we don't put up the latest blurry phone camera pic of somebody making random shapes with the fingers, we only put up our better material. Why do we do that? Could it be that we are trying to make a good impression on visitors?
Stan
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
It's not the mission of Commons to force a change of broadly common sensibilities.
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all), of any one group, no matter how large or influential that group is.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 05/16/2011 11:57 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)
"Pander" is a word doesn't in the least bit describe what anyone is suggesting or in fact doing. "(and outside the US they really aren't at all)" is a factual error.
(Sensibilities are not common in Australia? Britain? Canada? Japan? China? India? Indonesia? Turkey? Egypt? ...? )
Cary
Am 16.05.2011 21:07, schrieb Cary Bass:
On 05/16/2011 11:57 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)
"Pander" is a word doesn't in the least bit describe what anyone is suggesting or in fact doing. "(and outside the US they really aren't at all)" is a factual error.
(Sensibilities are not common in Australia? Britain? Canada? Japan? China? India? Indonesia? Turkey? Egypt? ...? )
Cary
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
At least you could strike the following from the list: Japan, India and Turkey. In
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature this image without any concern: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature this image without any concern: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
That is a non-argument. Firstly, the Main page on many Wikipedias defaults to the Main Page on Commons, because those Wikipedias trust Commons to make appropriate choices, which it has not, unfortunately, in this instance.
Secondly, the fact that an image is featured on a language Wikipedia does not automatically mean it's going to be widely accepted as appropriate by most of the population of that country.
Simply because Manga originates from Japan and is a wide topic, does not mean an image of such quality would be expected on the cover or main page of any piece of educational material in Japan. Manga is a well-known topic in the United States, incidentally.
Our goal is not to shock and surprise the end user, and in doing so, we have to respect the end user, which is not well-reflected by the make-up of the general Commons community.
Cary
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature this image without any concern: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
That is a non-argument. Firstly, the Main page on many Wikipedias defaults to the Main Page on Commons, because those Wikipedias trust Commons to make appropriate choices, which it has not, unfortunately, in this instance.
Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to it's founding principle of being not censored.
Our goal is not to shock and surprise the end user, and in doing so, we have to respect the end user, which is not well-reflected by the make-up of the general Commons community.
We best respect our end users by doing exactly what we say we will do - i.e. provide an uncensored repository of educational and educationally useful free media.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to it's founding principle of being not censored.
Well actually, the founding principle is giving everyone free access to the sum of human knowledge, which is not quite the same thing.
We best respect our end users by doing exactly what we say we will do - i.e. provide an uncensored repository of educational and educationally useful free media.
Putting some limits on what is on the main page doesn't affect that goal in any way. Galleries/categories/files on any topic are available to whoever wants to see them.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, not freedom to force everyone to listen to what you are saying. Just as my right to freely swing my fists ends at your nose, my right to freely speak ends at your ears. The necessary corollary of the right to freely speak is the right to choose not to listen.
In this context, applying some sort of 'least surprise' based approach to what goes on the main page is simply a reasonable step toward protecting a person's right to avoid speech they wish to avoid.
HITLER!!
(Did that work?)
- d.
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Stephen Bain wrote:
In this context, applying some sort of 'least surprise' based approach to what goes on the main page is simply a reasonable step toward protecting a person's right to avoid speech they wish to avoid.
But who defines what topics are acceptable for a "least surprise" approach? By this principal we should not have on the main page images of humans, gods, maps of any territory under dispute (Armenia/Azerbijan, Israel/Paelestine, Northern Ireland, Libya, the Golan Heights, Kashmir (sp?), etc, etc), weapons, death, women, nudity (partial or otherwise), body parts, meat, laboratory animals, bodily fluids, etc, etc.
The whole world does not subscribe to the American views about what is and is not suitable for any given audience.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
But who defines what topics are acceptable for a "least surprise" approach?
The community of course, by consensus.
By this principal we should not have on the main page images of humans, gods, maps of any territory under dispute (Armenia/Azerbijan, Israel/Paelestine, Northern Ireland, Libya, the Golan Heights, Kashmir (sp?), etc, etc), weapons, death, women, nudity (partial or otherwise), body parts, meat, laboratory animals, bodily fluids, etc, etc.
That would be an absolute guarantee of the freedom to choose to avoid speech. All we need is reasonable protection. What is reasonable can be decided by the community.
The whole world does not subscribe to the American views about what is and is not suitable for any given audience.
No. But the point is, nor does the whole world subscribe to American Revolutionary absolutist libertarian paranoia.
On 5/16/2011 12:56 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Stephen Bain wrote:
In this context, applying some sort of 'least surprise' based approach to what goes on the main page is simply a reasonable step toward protecting a person's right to avoid speech they wish to avoid.
But who defines what topics are acceptable for a "least surprise" approach?
It's not topics that define how a "least surprise" approach is applied, it's the setting and context. *All* topics can be put through a least surprise analysis. This relates closely to another issue in this debate, the question of what has educational value. Media have educational value according to the setting and context in which they are presented. Many pictures, including very good ones, would completely lack educational value without some kind of explanation or context of what the picture is showing.
For the purposes of this kind of analysis, the main page of Commons (or another project like a particular Wikipedia language) is not a setting that provides very much in the way of context for featuring a picture. As a result of this lack of context, it only makes sense that we would need to exercise a little more editorial judgment than usual in selecting what pictures appear there.
--Michael Snow
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to it's founding principle of being not censored.
Well actually, the founding principle is giving everyone free access to the sum of human knowledge, which is not quite the same thing.
That's not a founding principle, that's a quip from Jimbo that came much later than foundation Otherwise I agree completely with you
This has been mixing two different things: should commons host images like that one (yes), should commons allow such images on main page (as community decides)
The proper way to move forward here is not get into a hot discussion, but realize that what we need is more and more people getting involved on the featuring process.
If everybody "disappointed" about this image being promoted would get involved, then the problem would actually start going away.
On 05/16/2011 12:40 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature this image without any concern: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
That is a non-argument. Firstly, the Main page on many Wikipedias defaults to the Main Page on Commons, because those Wikipedias trust Commons to make appropriate choices, which it has not, unfortunately, in this instance.
Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to it's founding principle of being not censored.
Firstly, there's no such founding principle of Commons, and secondly, "not censored" is not in Commons' mission, which is being addressed.
Our goal is not to shock and surprise the end user, and in doing so, we have to respect the end user, which is not well-reflected by the make-up of the general Commons community.
We best respect our end users by doing exactly what we say we will do - i.e. provide an uncensored repository of educational and educationally useful free media.
"Uncensored" is not in the mission of Commons, you're rather blatantly inserting it here. Creating a culture of surprise and shock is not fulfilling the mission.
And no, we absolutely do not "best respect" our end users by offending them.
Chris, I think you keep making the same argument over and over again and refusing to actually take in what anyone has said in response to you--your responses to me aren't actually responding to what I'm saying, as if I or anyone else is assaulting the right of Commons to host controversial or contentious images, which I am not doing.
Cary
Firstly, there's no such founding principle of Commons, and secondly, "not censored" is not in Commons' mission, which is being addressed.
"Uncensored" is not in the mission of Commons, you're rather blatantly inserting it here. Creating a culture of surprise and shock is not fulfilling the mission.
Cary
That would explain "The title of this image is: On the Edge"
Fred
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Actaully, I think it has made the absolutely right choice - to stick to it's founding principle of being not censored.
We best respect our end users by doing exactly what we say we will do - i.e. provide an uncensored repository of educational and educationally useful free media.
It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in that image. If someone argues against an image with breasts, it is censorship.
If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's technically semi-competent, but undistinguished Thomas Kinkade pastiche in Commons, would you also shout censorship? Probably not, I guess, because the censorship argument requires that there be breasts in the image.
Again, if I get a garage band to upload a few tracks, does the singer have to say "fuck" in the lyrics to have your support? That would work too: "Y'all only want to delete this great track in the style of ... from Commons because the singer says 'fuck'. But that's what singers in this genre of music say all the time, and therefore it's educational. Commons is not censored!"
So ... following this line of thought, the way to prove educational usefulness in Commons seems to be to make sure that there are either breasts or "fuck" in your piece of art, or music. Because without that, it's just a so-so painting by an amateur artist, or a so-so track by an amateur band, and the censorship argument won't wash.
The whole point is that this image has neither superb artistic merit nor superb illustrative value. Artistically, the perspective and textures are poor, as was pointed out at FPC, and educationally, the fantasy setting is too specific to be illustrative of a generic style.
Andreas
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in that image. If someone argues against an image with breasts, it is censorship.
If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's technically semi-competent, but undistinguished Thomas Kinkade pastiche in Commons, would you also shout censorship? Probably not, I guess, because the censorship argument requires that there be breasts in the image.
Censorship does not require there be breasts or "fuck" or anything else. It's just the only arguments I've seen about why this image should not be on the main page are that it contains breasts. If you want to complain that it should not be on the main page because it's a poor pastiche then that's a very different issue that is not censorship related, but not one that I've seen made and so not one I've made any comments about. To be honest though that would seem more like an argument that it should not be featured rather than it should not be on the main page. My view is that if it is featured it should be eligible to be on the main page, if it isn't featured then it shouldn't be on the main page. Whether it should be featured on not I don't hold a strong opinion on, and not a discussion for this thread (imho), other than the fact that the image contains breasts should be entirely irrelevant.
If the image contained blood and gore and people were saying that it shouldn't be on the main page because of that, then I would be equally against such censorship, even though I personally think that image would be far less suitable for children than one containing bare breasts. The image does not contain blood or gore and so nobody is saying it shouldn't be on the main page for that reason, hence I'm not making any points about that.
There does seem to have been a bit of comment along the lines of "manga cannot have artistic value", but that isn't why they think it should not be on the main page (at least the way I've read the emails containing those comments) and so they aren't proposing to censor it for that reason.
The same goes for any reaosn that is proposed for censoring content, e.g. I don't think we should refrain from showing a featured map of Azerbijan just because it might offend the Armenians.
Again, if I get a garage band to upload a few tracks, does the singer have to say "fuck" in the lyrics to have your support? That would work too: "Y'all only want to delete this great track in the style of ... from Commons because the singer says 'fuck'. But that's what singers in this genre of music say all the time, and therefore it's educational. Commons is not censored!"
Not at all. If a garage band upload a few songs that you propose to be featured, then I would determine my view based on the whole content, quality, description, potential for educational use and any other relevant factors (I don't work in the area of featured sounds, so I don't know what the criteria are). The presence or abscence of one word should be irrelevant to the decision in most cases, the exception being if that word was the basis of the educational use of the work, for example I wouldn't vote to feature a clip of the Sex Pistols on television show where they said "Fuck" if it didn't contain them saying "Fuck" if that was the basis of the educational use of the clip. If the clip though does show them performing on television, then that would potentially be a reason for the educational use (obviously this would not be Free content though, but I couldn't think of a better example of the top of my head).
So ... following this line of thought, the way to prove educational usefulness in Commons seems to be to make sure that there are either breasts or "fuck" in your piece of art, or music. Because without that, it's just a so-so painting by an amateur artist, or a so-so track by an amateur band, and the censorship argument won't wash.
Not at all. My argument that this should be on the main page is that this is a featured image. If it wasn't a featured image then I wouldn't want it on the main page. As I said above, whether it should be a featured image or not is a different discussion.
The whole point is that this image has neither superb artistic merit nor superb illustrative value. Artistically, the perspective and textures are poor, as was pointed out at FPC, and educationally, the fantasy setting is too specific to be illustrative of a generic style.
Then you are missing the point that I am making. While you have valid arguments for this not being a featured image, while it is a featured image they are irrelevant to it being or not being on the main page.
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 22:21 On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in
that image. If someone argues
against an image with breasts, it is censorship.
If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's
technically semi-competent,
but undistinguished Thomas Kinkade pastiche in
Commons, would you also shout
censorship? Probably not, I guess, because the
censorship argument requires
that there be breasts in the image.
Censorship does not require there be breasts or "fuck" or anything else. It's just the only arguments I've seen about why this image should not be on the main page are that it contains breasts. If you want to complain that it should not be on the main page because it's a poor pastiche then that's a very different issue that is not censorship related, but not one that I've seen made and so not one I've made any comments about.
You missed a good part of the debate then:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005964.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005973.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006036.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005989.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005981.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006022.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006023.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006032.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006038.html
Kind of proves my point ... the breasts overshadowed everything. ;)
Compare this one from the same artist:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
Far less ambitious, totally within his artistic means, and a much better illustration of Manga drawing style. That's a FP in that area; the other one isn't.
Andreas
Absolutely. In my opinion just one statement of "she's got big tits" is enough to make me sick - if this is what makes a featured image, ugh. And "if you don't like it leave" doesn't work for me. Sexist comments like the tits has no place here, and I'd assume if there was an image of a nude man and someone said "His cock isn't big enough" Someone would take action.
And if you think this doesn't deter people from wanting to contribute or get involved, I'm disappointed, but, perhaps not shocked.
I'm so tired of these cultural blames - too., I brought this up on the Gender Gap list as a person who believes a low quality stereotyping image does nothing for what we are trying to achieve. This has nothing to do with me living in the States, let alone many colleagues of mine here who believe this should not be a showcase image on the front page.
Again, judgements of where you are from should be left out of this - most people here know little or nothing about one another's personal life. The creator of that work might go to nude beaches, and I'm sure there are plenty of "us Americans" who have lifestyles some people here would not agree with that make that drawing look tame.
But, I am happy to see this dialogue taking place, and happy that it has triggered quality conversation on the original list I shared it on.
-Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On May 16, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 22:21 On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in
that image. If someone argues
against an image with breasts, it is censorship.
If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's
technically semi-competent,
but undistinguished Thomas Kinkade pastiche in
Commons, would you also shout
censorship? Probably not, I guess, because the
censorship argument requires
that there be breasts in the image.
Censorship does not require there be breasts or "fuck" or anything else. It's just the only arguments I've seen about why this image should not be on the main page are that it contains breasts. If you want to complain that it should not be on the main page because it's a poor pastiche then that's a very different issue that is not censorship related, but not one that I've seen made and so not one I've made any comments about.
You missed a good part of the debate then:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005964.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005973.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006036.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005989.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005981.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006022.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006023.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006032.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006038.html
Kind of proves my point ... the breasts overshadowed everything. ;)
Compare this one from the same artist:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
Far less ambitious, totally within his artistic means, and a much better illustration of Manga drawing style. That's a FP in that area; the other one isn't.
Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I can't agree with your first paragraph. This was one vote, one side comment, on the image. If you take it this seriously then you have some deep missunderstandings. I also doubt that someone would take action because of "his cock isn't big enough". You draw the devil on the wall and try it currently with polemic examples, how hurt you are. That's a very bad example for an argument. This is an example for oration.
There are many different kind of people. Some might found it good and are now participating, some don't. To get anyone in, we can't concentrate on only "absolutely safe" topics. What about photographers in sexual related genres? If we never show such pictures, even if they are done with profession, then this possible contributes will get an wrong impression of commons as well.
It might not be the cultural aspect which divides the thoughts in this case. But currently we are only hearing the two opposites exchanging blow after blow. You could say: Some to the far left, some to the far right. But whats typical is middle section, that doesn't care in either way. And no one knows how big it is. Im also disappointed that such an discussion started on the mailinglist. A place with very few people participating and with strong English bias. A backroom for insiders if you will. (This is considered one of the main problems in communication)
Tobias
Am 17.05.2011 01:23, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
Absolutely. In my opinion just one statement of "she's got big tits" is enough to make me sick - if this is what makes a featured image, ugh. And "if you don't like it leave" doesn't work for me. Sexist comments like the tits has no place here, and I'd assume if there was an image of a nude man and someone said "His cock isn't big enough" Someone would take action. And if you think this doesn't deter people from wanting to contribute or get involved, I'm disappointed, but, perhaps not shocked.
I'm so tired of these cultural blames - too., I brought this up on the Gender Gap list as a person who believes a low quality stereotyping image does nothing for what we are trying to achieve. This has nothing to do with me living in the States, let alone many colleagues of mine here who believe this should not be a showcase image on the front page.
Again, judgements of where you are from should be left out of this - most people here know little or nothing about one another's personal life. The creator of that work might go to nude beaches, and I'm sure there are plenty of "us Americans" who have lifestyles some people here would not agree with that make that drawing look tame.
But, I am happy to see this dialogue taking place, and happy that it has triggered quality conversation on the original list I shared it on.
-Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On May 16, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Chris McKennacmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKennacmckenna@sucs.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 22:21 On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
It seems to me you are obsessed with the breasts in
that image. If someone argues
against an image with breasts, it is censorship.
If someone argues against hosting some Wikimedian's
technically semi-competent,
but undistinguished Thomas Kinkade pastiche in
Commons, would you also shout
censorship? Probably not, I guess, because the
censorship argument requires
that there be breasts in the image.
Censorship does not require there be breasts or "fuck" or anything else. It's just the only arguments I've seen about why this image should not be on the main page are that it contains breasts. If you want to complain that it should not be on the main page because it's a poor pastiche then that's a very different issue that is not censorship related, but not one that I've seen made and so not one I've made any comments about.
You missed a good part of the debate then:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005964.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005973.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006036.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005989.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/005981.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006022.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006023.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006032.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/006038.html
Kind of proves my point ... the breasts overshadowed everything. ;)
Compare this one from the same artist:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
Far less ambitious, totally within his artistic means, and a much better illustration of Manga drawing style. That's a FP in that area; the other one isn't.
Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
At least you could strike the following from the list: Japan, India and Turkey. In
In Japan it is a well known topic, in India i can't see any confusion about this image (it is on the mainpage) and Turkey decided to feature this image without any concern: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
I wonder which Indian Wikipedia you mean. It's not on en:WP, and neither on hi:WP. It's on the Bangladeshi, which I guess is read in parts of India, but that's it as far as I can tell.
A.
On 05/16/2011 11:57 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)
"Pander" is a word doesn't in the least bit describe what anyone is suggesting or in fact doing. "(and outside the US they really aren't at all)" is a factual error.
(Sensibilities are not common in Australia? Britain? Canada? Japan? China? India? Indonesia? Turkey? Egypt? ...? )
Cary
Actually, he is using pander correctly to describe our exaggerated attention to this matter at the demand of a small group of people.
The world wide audience is another matter.
Fred
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
The world wide audience is another matter.
And this audience is not well reflected by the lackadaisical attitude toward end users that pervades our otherwise wonderful Commons community.
Cary
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
The world wide audience is another matter.
And this audience is not well reflected by the lackadaisical attitude toward end users that pervades our otherwise wonderful Commons community.
Cary
Yes, we have a long way to go in terms of developing global participation and leadership. And certainly don't want to throw up artificial barriers of our own contrivance.
Fred
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
The world wide audience is another matter.
And this audience is not well reflected by the lackadaisical attitude toward end users that pervades our otherwise wonderful Commons community.
I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting any sort of lackadaiscial attitude? As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 05/16/2011 12:43 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Actually what you say that you are reading is a hyperbolic assessment of the argument that fictionalizes one side of the argument while heroizing the side of it you agree with. It's not actually truthful.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
You keep making the same argument, and not actually responding to what is being said. Which leaves one to wonder why they are still responding to you.
Cary
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
You keep making the same argument, and not actually responding to what is being said. Which leaves one to wonder why they are still responding to you.
If Commons is neither censored nor uncensored then what is it? If, as it seems, you are maintaining that we can censor the main page and still be not censored - how? And who does the censoring? And how do we determine which culture's morals to adhere to and which to ignore?
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
You keep making the same argument, and not actually responding to what is being said. Which leaves one to wonder why they are still responding to you.
If Commons is neither censored nor uncensored then what is it? If, as it seems, you are maintaining that we can censor the main page and still be not censored - how? And who does the censoring? And how do we determine which culture's morals to adhere to and which to ignore?
Chris McKenna
The morals of American prime time TV are not in the running (murder and mayhem, but no explicit sexual language), but perhaps common sense notions of what is appropriate for children might be. (for the picture of the day featured on the front page, not content in general)
Fred
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
The morals of American prime time TV are not in the running (murder and mayhem, but no explicit sexual language), but perhaps common sense notions of what is appropriate for children might be. (for the picture of the day featured on the front page, not content in general)
Fred
So what is "appropriate for children"? And who do you mean by "children" - under 4s? under 8s? under 18s? under 21s? And whose "common sense" do we choose - it seems that in your opinion it is common sense that this image is not appropriate, yet in mine it is fine. Neither of us are alone in our opinions. Whose opinon is correct?
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
So what is "appropriate for children"?
How about - 'not likely to get the student at a typical high school sent to offfice for sexual harrassment, inappropriate usage of school resources, or the website as a whole blocked in typical software. Would not result in the firing of a teacher if they were to distribute the image to the children. Would not have criminal or legal ramifications if you brought the image to the school and began distributing it the children.'
And whose "common sense" do we choose - it seems that in your opinion it is common sense that this image is not appropriate, yet in mine it is fine. Neither of us are alone in our opinions. Whose opinon is correct?
If by showing the image to children in a public school setting there could likely be legal ramifications (going to jail, getting placed on a sex offender list), then chances are - common sense would dictate that it is inappropriate for children and by extension inappropriate for the front page of commons.
Tom M. LetterRip
On 5/16/11 12:43 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
False dichotomy - intelligent choice of front-page content is orthogonal to choice of collection content. I'm perfectly content for Commons to have 100,000+ penis photos, indeed a large number starts to make it statistically interesting, but that doesn't mean I think that changing PotD to mean "Penis of the Day" is a good idea.
Stan
Am 16.05.2011 22:05, schrieb Stan Shebs:
On 5/16/11 12:43 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
False dichotomy - intelligent choice of front-page content is orthogonal to choice of collection content. I'm perfectly content for Commons to have 100,000+ penis photos, indeed a large number starts to make it statistically interesting, but that doesn't mean I think that changing PotD to mean "Penis of the Day" is a good idea.
Stan
How about any picture which qualifies to be one of the best examples for every topic?
Tobias
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Stan Shebs wrote:
False dichotomy - intelligent choice of front-page content is orthogonal to choice of collection content. I'm perfectly content for Commons to have 100,000+ penis photos, indeed a large number starts to make it statistically interesting, but that doesn't mean I think that changing PotD to mean "Penis of the Day" is a good idea.
Nobody is suggesting that PotD should mean penis of the day, even if we have 100,000+ featured images of them just as much as it should not be Partridge of the Day if we get that many featured images of them. This is completely irrelevant to the entire discussion.
The choice of front-page content is determined by featured pictures. If you want featured pictures that cannot go on the main page then you have to define and get consensus on a set of objective criteria that determines what is and is not acceptbale for the front page. And then explain to the authors and uploaders of content that doesn't make it why their image is of a lower value than the next person's featured image. ("Sorry, but your image cannot go on the main page because we don't want to offend some Americans. However user:Example's image is fine because that's only offensive to Muslims.")
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 5/16/11 1:14 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
The choice of front-page content is determined by featured pictures. If you want featured pictures that cannot go on the main page then you have to define and get consensus on a set of objective criteria that determines what is and is not acceptbale for the front page.
I think everybody involved with the image in this discussion knew *full* *well* that it would be problematic.
And then explain to the authors and uploaders of content that doesn't make it why their image is of a lower value than the next person's featured image. ("Sorry, but your image cannot go on the main page because we don't want to offend some Americans. However user:Example's image is fine because that's only offensive to Muslims.")
People who are smart enough to create the images are also smart enough to know ahead of time who is likely to be offended by what; the protestations of naivete here are pretty transparently untrue. Indeed, were there to be a main-page vetting process, it could even become a perverse badge of honor - "check out my picture that made FP, but is too hot to be on the main page".
Stan
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting any sort of lackadaiscial attitude? As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
Someone reading this conversation might almost think that "uncensored images" is the defining core value of Commons. If that's actually the case, some rebranding is necessary. I imagine you could certainly attract an audience with a site advertised as being uncensored, but I was always under the impression that Commons and Wikimedia were out for a broader, more fully clothed audience.
What's funny is that you actually think you are arguing against attempts at censorship; what this demonstrates more than anything else is that you have deeply misunderstood censorship and what it means. Unfortunately, you are obviously not nearly open minded enough to learn from any explanation.
I will try to make one point: You are not in any sense the proprietor, gatekeeper, authority or representative of Commons the project or its community. You have no right to tell people "If you don't like it, get out" as you have done several times. They are as free to express their opinion as you are, and many (as you've no doubt noticed) disagree with you. So why not take a break from telling people to go away?
Nathan
Who ho ho
127 mails about the POTD :p Could you do this discussion on commons unstead of pollute the mails boxes ?
I like this list when it subject is about new features or nice markus' tools... But I don't really like when it talk about never-end debates...
On a tous tété un jour, il n'y a pas de quoi en faire un fromage. Everybody had suckle once a day, there is no way to make a cheese about.
Florian Farge aka Otourly Sur lesprojets wikimédiens et l'Association française,sur OxyRadio, OSM, et sur MOVIM Socio di Wikimedia Italia
________________________________ De : Nathan nawrich@gmail.com À : Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Envoyé le : Lun 16 mai 2011, 22h 39min 20s Objet : Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting any sort of lackadaiscial attitude? As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
Someone reading this conversation might almost think that "uncensored images" is the defining core value of Commons. If that's actually the case, some rebranding is necessary. I imagine you could certainly attract an audience with a site advertised as being uncensored, but I was always under the impression that Commons and Wikimedia were out for a broader, more fully clothed audience.
What's funny is that you actually think you are arguing against attempts at censorship; what this demonstrates more than anything else is that you have deeply misunderstood censorship and what it means. Unfortunately, you are obviously not nearly open minded enough to learn from any explanation.
I will try to make one point: You are not in any sense the proprietor, gatekeeper, authority or representative of Commons the project or its community. You have no right to tell people "If you don't like it, get out" as you have done several times. They are as free to express their opinion as you are, and many (as you've no doubt noticed) disagree with you. So why not take a break from telling people to go away?
Nathan
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Am 16.05.2011 22:39, schrieb Nathan:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKennacmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting any sort of lackadaiscial attitude? As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
Someone reading this conversation might almost think that "uncensored images" is the defining core value of Commons. If that's actually the case, some rebranding is necessary. I imagine you could certainly attract an audience with a site advertised as being uncensored, but I was always under the impression that Commons and Wikimedia were out for a broader, more fully clothed audience.
What's funny is that you actually think you are arguing against attempts at censorship; what this demonstrates more than anything else is that you have deeply misunderstood censorship and what it means. Unfortunately, you are obviously not nearly open minded enough to learn from any explanation.
I will try to make one point: You are not in any sense the proprietor, gatekeeper, authority or representative of Commons the project or its community. You have no right to tell people "If you don't like it, get out" as you have done several times. They are as free to express their opinion as you are, and many (as you've no doubt noticed) disagree with you. So why not take a break from telling people to go away?
Nathan
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Everyone is free to express it's oppinion. But in this case the image was listed multiple moth as picture of the day. More then enough time to get the oppinion from the community and not only from one view (as in this case). No one had a problem with this image until it was removed and this discussion somehow started. Like Wikipedia, Commons is a community project. It is nothing without an running community. Any action done without consent (like Jimbo did before) is offensive against the community, making her mistrusting the WMF, that interferes with community decissions.
Tobias
Op 16 mei 2011 22:53 schreef "Tobias Oelgarte" < tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> het volgende:
Any action done without consent (like Jimbo did before) is offensive against the community, making her mistrusting the WMF, that interferes with community decissions.
Your analogy is misplaced. The controversy started because of jimbo acting with his authority. That analogy would be appropriate if neil would have threatened or had taken steps against reverting his actions, which he clearly did not. You seem to think that every action needs to be backed up by a discussion on beforehand. This is in fact not how a wiki works.
Am 16.05.2011 23:20, schrieb Bryan Tong Minh:
Op 16 mei 2011 22:53 schreef "Tobias Oelgarte" <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> het volgende:
Any action done without consent (like Jimbo did before) is offensive against the community, making her mistrusting the WMF, that interferes with community decissions.
Your analogy is misplaced. The controversy started because of jimbo acting with his authority. That analogy would be appropriate if neil would have threatened or had taken steps against reverting his actions, which he clearly did not. You seem to think that every action needs to be backed up by a discussion on beforehand. This is in fact not how a wiki works.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Any action should have a valid reasoning. He exchanged the image with a rather offending comment to everyone that sees sexuality as an equal topic to anything else. The "wiki" analogy does also not work in this case. The page was cascade blocked, so that normal users had no chance to revert his action.
Tobias
On 5/16/11 11:37 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Any action should have a valid reasoning. He exchanged the image with a rather offending comment to everyone that sees sexuality as an equal topic to anything else.
No, I didn't. This is what I said:
"Changing to something that's less fapworthy, more educational. While I have no problems with erotic fantasies, even of the derivative and artistically unimportant kind depicted here, IMO the main page of Commons usually isn't the place for it."
This comment clearly shows that I - think sexual topics *are* appropriate for the front page of Commons, under certain circumstances - think this image doesn't meet those criteria
Many of you have this impression that I removed the image just because it had sexual content. If you have that impression, it is not arising from anything I said or did. It is solely due to your prejudiced ideas about who you think your opponents are. Repeat. It is solely due to your prejudiced ideas about who you think your opponents are.
You may also be unfamiliar with the purpose of Commons, which states explicitly that it isn't a venue for personal artistic works that have little educational value. I thought it was a no-brainer to remove the image from the front page of Commons, just for that reason, and the fact that it was offensive to some people or inappropriate at most workplaces or schools was just extra justification.
If I hear another of you bleat "COMMONS ISN'T CENSORED" or "DAMN YOU AMERICANS AND YOUR BLUENOSE STANDARDS" I'm going to have to file you in the troll folder.
Am 16.05.2011 22:39, schrieb Nathan:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKennacmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting any sort of lackadaiscial attitude? As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
Someone reading this conversation might almost think that "uncensored images" is the defining core value of Commons. If that's actually the case, some rebranding is necessary. I imagine you could certainly attract an audience with a site advertised as being uncensored, but I was always under the impression that Commons and Wikimedia were out for a broader, more fully clothed audience.
What's funny is that you actually think you are arguing against attempts at censorship; what this demonstrates more than anything else is that you have deeply misunderstood censorship and what it means. Unfortunately, you are obviously not nearly open minded enough to learn from any explanation.
I will try to make one point: You are not in any sense the proprietor, gatekeeper, authority or representative of Commons the project or its community. You have no right to tell people "If you don't like it, get out" as you have done several times. They are as free to express their opinion as you are, and many (as you've no doubt noticed) disagree with you. So why not take a break from telling people to go away?
Nathan
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Additionally the German community decided with 233:13 votes against any kind of censorship of the mainpage. That means, any article or image that is considered good in previous a previous debate has it's right (to be good enough) to be shown on the mainpage, no matter what it is. That is my interpretation of not censored, preselected content by a minority.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Beschr%C3%A4nkung_der_...
Tobias
This not about censorship this is about, this is about how we present Commons to a wider audience.
This not the work by some recognised artist, nor is it part/segment of from any major work, its just a drawing done by a contributor to Commons. It has no value outside of that context given this it does push the boundaries of commons scope its use elsewhere would certainly be dropped should works of a recognised artist become available. What does show casing this image on the main page contribute to the improvement of Commons.
I asked the question before yet it remains un-answered by anyone is this image so significantly important that by showcasing it on the main page we are willing to sacrific the ability of many to participate in Commons.
I'm working with two archives here to get them to share their archived images under a free license, one of those archives has 137,000 images taken by their professional news photographers covering all major events that have occurred here over the last 20 years. They also have 1million plus images from the 1960's through to 1990 that are yet to be digitised, unfortunately the people that work there(i did at one stage) sign individual contracts which specify that the viewing/downloading of sexually explicit material(this image fits that definition) is grounds for instant dismissal.
When, though now its more "if" they do choose to make the image available there will be significant coverage in the media over here if that one image had been show cased on that day you can be sure that the following day there would be even more coverage of them withdrawning from the contribution and with it the elimination of partnerships with most GLAM organisations across the country.
Is this image so significantly important that show casing it on the main page is worth the cost to Commons?
On 17 May 2011 03:43, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Cary Bass wrote:
On 05/16/2011 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
The world wide audience is another matter.
And this audience is not well reflected by the lackadaisical attitude toward end users that pervades our otherwise wonderful Commons community.
I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting any sort of lackadaiscial attitude? As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the rights to an uncensored collection of free media.
Commons is not censored, if you want a collection of free media that does not offend you or someone else then you are in the wrong place.
Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna http://www.sucs.org/%7Ecmckenna
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
Do it in your freetime and not at work?
People go to commons to download media that they know is safe to reuse.
We want them to go to commons to download these media files.
We want them to do this *at work*. That is why we require that media must be released under licenses that allow commercial reuse.
Anyone should be able to use our category system to navigate from the front page to the image they seek without being offended by images that they did not want to see. Of course we cant guarantee this, however violations of this usability principle should be the exception, and we should be keen to improve the categorisation.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I would like to see actual movement on the idea that there could be a system similar to Flickr's where you can set viewing preferences to block out hardcore pornography, that and nudity, or nothing at all. The arguments about not seeing nudity unless you search for it wouldn't apply to this image, as it is located in Category:Girls_in_anime_and_manga for instance, which is not necessarily going to include nudity.
On 5/16/2011 10:43 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
Tobias
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.
As I previously wrote, and perhaps Tobias is still catching up on emails, there are plenty of places in the United States where this image would be inappropriate to display.
I give lectures, about Wikipedia. I pull up Wikipedia and Commons often in front of large groups of people - college students, museum colleagues, PhD candidates, college professors - if you think this image is the best we have to show these people "oh we're serious, oh, you should contribute" then I'm fighting the wrong fight.
And yeah, boobs, butts or whatever - I'm surprised someone hasn't pulled out the "but...National Geographic..." card yet.
#wikilove,
Sarah
On 5/16/2011 10:32 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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".
Hi Tobias - I hate to break it to you, but, a nude male is not always the most tasteful and appropriate thing either. And frankly (sorry boys!) it's quite rare that the male genitalia is a beautiful thing aesthetically. No matter how much we could argue this, I'm sure there would be plenty of Wikimedia Commons contributors who'd rather not see
I'm glad that these German women felt that it wasn't offensive, I don't even think the image is "offensive" because there are breasts - I just can't believe people aren't thinking about who is looking at this image - it's not just Wikimedians and German women who think its tasteful.
It's also school teachers, grand parents, Asian women who dislike the stereotype, spiritually conservative people, etc. It's also a lot of women, who go "oh great, the geeks are putting their anime porn up on Wikimedia, ugh."
I do believe that the majority of the images, nudes or not, BDSM whatever, do have places in Commons, but, I disagree that just because a few women aren't offended, doesn't mean a greater community as a whole isn't. A global community, that we are working towards encouraging to contribute more.
Images like this set us back.
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.
I don't even know what a mangaka is. And trust me, I don't think I could live without sexual activity /either!/ But, it does state that your image is a fictional character in a fictional environment, so, if mangaka's are a real group of people, then I'm not sure why your description states otherwise. Perhaps I'm just a bit confused due to my lack of interest and knowledge about the manga/anime world. Like I said, I've seen a few videos, and well, have had a few beers watching Hentai in my past at parties - not always the best introduction to the way women are viewed in Japanese cartoons. LOL.
Sarah
Am 16.05.2011 18:03, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/16/2011 10:32 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
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".
Hi Tobias - I hate to break it to you, but, a nude male is not always the most tasteful and appropriate thing either. And frankly (sorry boys!) it's quite rare that the male genitalia is a beautiful thing aesthetically. No matter how much we could argue this, I'm sure there would be plenty of Wikimedia Commons contributors who'd rather not see
I'm glad that these German women felt that it wasn't offensive, I don't even think the image is "offensive" because there are breasts - I just can't believe people aren't thinking about who is looking at this image - it's not just Wikimedians and German women who think its tasteful.
It's also school teachers, grand parents, Asian women who dislike the stereotype, spiritually conservative people, etc. It's also a lot of women, who go "oh great, the geeks are putting their anime porn up on Wikimedia, ugh."
I do believe that the majority of the images, nudes or not, BDSM whatever, do have places in Commons, but, I disagree that just because a few women aren't offended, doesn't mean a greater community as a whole isn't. A global community, that we are working towards encouraging to contribute more.
Images like this set us back.
You are currently only talking about women at the first place . In my experience it lead only to more problems, if you try to enforce some kind of change in gender related topics. If we want to reach equality, then we should give it time. A good example are companies that try to reach some kind of male/female ratio. To get more women as workes you introduce special conditions. The typical reaction is a conflict between male hardworkers (some that really do) and female hardworkers. In the end both aren't treated equal, leading to even bigger problems.
What i mean is: The current actions separating women and men even further. If you really want to support equal terms, then don't do something special. It will fix itself over time.
About children, teachers, and so on: Currently we don't have an age restriction or mechanism to control the access. In my case we wouldn't need such filters, since anything, seen as dirty or not, has it's own right. But if you really intend to control the access, then you should implement it first. Otherwise you introduce some kind censorship, that is not up the decission of the viewer itself. If a girl want's to see a penis it could find an image anywhere (not our problem). But if it want's to see one on Commons and deactivates the filter, then it is done with her own intention, out of own interest.
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.
I don't even know what a mangaka is. And trust me, I don't think I could live without sexual activity /either!/ But, it does state that your image is a fictional character in a fictional environment, so, if mangaka's are a real group of people, then I'm not sure why your description states otherwise. Perhaps I'm just a bit confused due to my lack of interest and knowledge about the manga/anime world. Like I said, I've seen a few videos, and well, have had a few beers watching Hentai in my past at parties - not always the best introduction to the way women are viewed in Japanese cartoons. LOL.
Thats why i wrote earlier that knowledge is needed for a rightfull judgement. Any Japanese that draws comics and publishes them is considered a mangaka. That sounds not very interesting. But you have to know, that Japan is with distance the world leader in Comics (Manga) and Cartoons (Anime). Most of the works are directed at an adult or older youth audience. On top of that, only a very small portion is so called hentai, that you have seen at your parties. But still, there are a lot of works bound to sexual topics. Japan itself is much less restrictive about such topics and manga aren't considered as "for kids". They are aiming at any possible age, including puns on politics, history or gender. You will find any aspects inside anime and manga, which are written by males, as well by females. I would really suggest that you will watch an anime like Bakemonogatari or a manga like Kodomo no Jikan. Both contain nudity. But it plays a very much different role as you might think.
Greetings from Tobias
On 16 May 2011 15:24, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote: Please cite your sources for the (lack of) artistic, historic, or cultural significance for this image and all the other examples cited.
Thats asking someone to prove a negative. If you wish to claims that the image has artistic, historic, or cultural significance please provide evidence that it does.
Citation needed for a /very/ offensive remark.
Please show that the remark is offensive. With reference facts and evidence. Please do so in an objective and culturally independent manner.
Please define "reasonable person" in an objective, culturally neutral way.
See case law deriving from Vaughan v. Menlove
On 16 May 2011 22:24, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
"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.
Thats the type of response that is driving people away from Commons, many
people spend a lot of time and effort trying to get GLAM organisations to donate to our collections but these places have strict contractual conditions on what employees can view and such images are outside those conditions. That doesnt mean we shouldnt host them or even consider them for FP, but value do we place on a couple of cartoon images getting to appear on the main page compared to the donation 10,000s of images.
Why is creating a barrier to peoples participation is good thing?
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Gnangarra wrote:
On 16 May 2011 22:24, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
"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.
Thats the type of response that is driving people away from Commons, many
people spend a lot of time and effort trying to get GLAM organisations to donate to our collections but these places have strict contractual conditions on what employees can view and such images are outside those conditions. That doesnt mean we shouldnt host them or even consider them for FP, but value do we place on a couple of cartoon images getting to appear on the main page compared to the donation 10,000s of images.
Why is creating a barrier to peoples participation is good thing?
If these organisations have policies that are incompatible with Wikimedia Commons then they should not be working with Wikimedia Commons.
Perhaps there should be a censored subset of Wikimedia Commons that such organisations can work with. As all the works are free content they can be shared between the censored and uncensored repositories. Our goal is to increase access to free content, getting more images in our collection is only one possible means of doing so, not an end in itself.
I don't know how well such a censored subset would work, given that every organisation's content policies I am aware of are different to each other, and the technical challenges associated with censorship, but I am no expert.
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 5/16/2011 11:07 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
I don't know how well such a censored subset would work, given that every organisation's content policies I am aware of are different to each other, and the technical challenges associated with censorship, but I am no expert.
I've actually implemented a "censored subset" of Wikimedia Commons so I've got some insight into this. One of my projects has partners that won't work with web sites that have nudity, so I've had to remove potentially offensive content from a sample of nearly a million images. This site has also has a large audience in K-12 education so I'm sensitive to people's concerns in that area.
Considering images that are used in actually Wikipedia, I'd say that a bit less than 0.1% (about 1 in 1000) of images contain nudity that "somebody" could find offensive. That includes pictures of ancient pots from Persia that show couples having intercourse, pictures taken at nude beaches that aren't conceivably lascivious as well as pictures of body modifications that you might bot believe until you saw them.
Oddly, people tend to think of Wikipedia as a place that's good for K-12 use despite the fact that it's not officially "family friendly." A lot of that is because you can use Wikipedia for a very long time and not find anything offensive, unless you go looking for it.
If the picture of the day was truly a random sample of what was in Wikipedia, I suppose we'd get something offensive and a big argument about it every three years or so -- so maybe this is all just par for the course.
Hi Paul,
How was that implemented?
How, if at all, do new contribs on the upstream commons propagate to your fork?
Does your site allow participation or it's read-only? If read-write how, if at all, do contribs flow back to commons?
How much manual work is required for all of that? Is this available for the general public to use?
-Jeremy On May 16, 2011 1:32 PM, "Paul Houle" paul@ontology2.com wrote:
On 5/16/2011 11:07 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
I don't know how well such a censored subset would work, given that every organisation's content policies I am aware of are different to each
other,
and the technical challenges associated with censorship, but I am no expert.
I've actually implemented a "censored subset" of Wikimedia Commons so I've got some insight into this. One of my projects has partners that won't work with web sites that have nudity, so I've had to remove potentially offensive content from a sample of nearly a million images. This site has also has a large audience in K-12 education so I'm sensitive to people's concerns in that area.
Considering images that are used in actually Wikipedia, I'd say that a bit less than 0.1% (about 1 in 1000) of images contain nudity that "somebody" could find offensive. That includes pictures of ancient pots from Persia that show couples having intercourse, pictures taken at nude beaches that aren't conceivably lascivious as well as pictures of body modifications that you might bot believe until you saw them.
Oddly, people tend to think of Wikipedia as a place that's good for K-12 use despite the fact that it's not officially "family friendly." A lot of that is because you can use Wikipedia for a very long time and not find anything offensive, unless you go looking for it.
If the picture of the day was truly a random sample of what was in Wikipedia, I suppose we'd get something offensive and a big argument about it every three years or so -- so maybe this is all just par for the course.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 5/16/2011 1:42 PM, Jeremy Baron wrote:
Hi Paul,
How was that implemented?
How, if at all, do new contribs on the upstream commons propagate to your fork?
Does your site allow participation or it's read-only? If read-write how, if at all, do contribs flow back to commons?
How much manual work is required for all of that? Is this available for the general public to use?
The site is http://ookaboo.com/
Metadata frequently is available in RDFa form and will be available in a data dump format when I get around to it.
Images are indexed by "topics" which come from Dbpedia and Freebase and are almost isomorphic to Wikipedia pages. The concept is that primarily topics are censored, not images. The system will reject an image that's related to a topic like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_piercing
This works because people by-and-large don't put offensive images on non-offensive topics in Wikipedia and because I don't mind if I lose a few non-offensive images.
I had a panic a few months ago about offensive images and I spent about four hours getting the bulk of them out. At this point they're suppressed enough that I don't mind whacking an occasional mole.
Ookaboo is about to add public participation features that will let people add images from a range of CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and PD repositories around the web. The focus is on "producing better metadata for images that people find in open repositories" rather than "providing another place for people to upload files" so we can rely on the community standards that are enforced by most repositories. People who break the rules will be dealt with harshly and we've got a method of selecting users that will bias away from griefers and wreckers.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
"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.
So if I think goatse.cx shouldn't be on the Commons Main Page, then I shouldn't use Commons? This argument is absurd.
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/16/2011 9:04 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.org mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org> wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about? The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you 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. I don't need to crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. 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.
As with a number of us - this is a big concern. While I had originally posted this to the mailing list for gender gap discussion, this is another of the reasons.
Like I said, which I'm having a feeling wasn't even read by many - you cannot pull THAT front page of Commons up in a classroom or educational environment and have it celebrated by a middle school teacher. Some of her kids might think it's "cool" or "hot", but, if I'd be one pissed parent. All it takes is one pissed parent, who overreacts, to report to the news that "my kid was shown porn at school/museum/church/camp/after school workshops/whatever' and all hell will break lose.
#wikilove,
Sarah
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Like I said, which I'm having a feeling wasn't even read by many - you cannot pull THAT front page of Commons up in a classroom or educational environment and have it celebrated by a middle school teacher. Some of her kids might think it's "cool" or "hot", but, if I'd be one pissed parent. All it takes is one pissed parent, who overreacts, to report to the news that "my kid was shown porn at school/museum/church/camp/after school workshops/whatever' and all hell will break lose.
In which case you should not be displaying Wikimedia Commons in such environments. Wikimedia Commons is an uncensored image repository, not a repository of images suitable for uncontroversial display to middle school teachers in whichever country you are in.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Am 16.05.2011 17:38, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/16/2011 9:04 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.org mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org> wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about? The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant, unlike all the other examples you 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. I don't need to crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. 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.
As with a number of us - this is a big concern. While I had originally posted this to the mailing list for gender gap discussion, this is another of the reasons.
Like I said, which I'm having a feeling wasn't even read by many - you cannot pull THAT front page of Commons up in a classroom or educational environment and have it celebrated by a middle school teacher. Some of her kids might think it's "cool" or "hot", but, if I'd be one pissed parent. All it takes is one pissed parent, who overreacts, to report to the news that "my kid was shown porn at school/museum/church/camp/after school workshops/whatever' and all hell will break lose.
#wikilove,
Sarah
Is this the only reason to justify that something can be shown or not? What about weapons, war scenes or even propaganda shots by the US army? Not one seams to care about this topics. Now we have an image of a fictional figure with bare breasts and it is a problem. How do you justify to show military propaganda?
Tobias
On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
Your statement isn't credible.
The image is not pornographic,
Citation needed
exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.
Yes you may not be aware of it but there are many projects out there that are able to distinguish between "featured X" and "must appear on the main page"
If you want to any keep images off the main page that are "sexy", "pornographic", "offensive" or any other arbitrary label you wish to choose, please start by defining in a neutral, objective and culturally independent manner every such label you want to use.
Within the context of the culture it was produced in the image is clearly an attempt at low level errotica
Secondly, please explain how this is compatible with Commons being not censored.
Main page is not equal to commons.
Thirdly, please define precisely what it is you are trying to achieve and why. Please do so in an objective and culturally independent manner.
We are trying to demonstrate that commons is not a sexualised enviroment.
Please explain how your comments are neutral and take into account the sensitivities of all cultures and special interest groups, not just your own.
You first.
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
Your statement isn't credible.
I don't understand what is not credible about my statement? I honestly do not understand why anybody finds this image objectionable.
The image is not pornographic,
Citation needed
Pornography is defined as: "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.
Yes you may not be aware of it but there are many projects out there that are able to distinguish between "featured X" and "must appear on the main page"
Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page. If you wish to make this distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus then images you object to will not appear on the main page.
If you want to any keep images off the main page that are "sexy", "pornographic", "offensive" or any other arbitrary label you wish to choose, please start by defining in a neutral, objective and culturally independent manner every such label you want to use.
Within the context of the culture it was produced in the image is clearly an attempt at low level errotica
No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are interpreting it as "low level errotica". In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort. According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort. The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex than in these two cultures.
Secondly, please explain how this is compatible with Commons being not censored.
Main page is not equal to commons.
I'm not aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored. If you wish to change this please gain consensus.
Thirdly, please define precisely what it is you are trying to achieve and why. Please do so in an objective and culturally independent manner.
We are trying to demonstrate that commons is not a sexualised enviroment.
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.
Please explain how your comments are neutral and take into account the sensitivities of all cultures and special interest groups, not just your own.
You first.
I am not the one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not offensive. All of the example images I gave were chosen because they are as likely to offend a group of people as this one seems to, just different groups of people. For instance several cultures object to the depiction of any images of human beings, others regard a woman with her head uncovered to be very offensive. The image of a woman on the sanddune is of an off-duty military officer. There are many people for whom female military officers are offensive, others will object to public money being spent on such activities and/or the official photogrpahing of such activities. That the woman is also not dressed in accordance to the local culture would also be very offensive to some.
If you would consider any of these to be accpetable for the main page, but not the original image under discussion, then I'm asking you to explain how your view is objective.
My view is that all featured pictures are suitable for the main page because Commons is not censored - it is thus neutral as it takes into account that there is no global standard in this regard and is biased towards no one group.
Now, how about answering the remaining points?
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Pornography is defined as: "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
Correct, mere nudity is neither sexual nor pornographic. The image is an allegory of liberty which is customarily portrayed in this way.
Fred
On 5/16/11 7:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris McKennacmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
Your statement isn't credible.
I don't understand what is not credible about my statement? I honestly do 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 up 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 making good first impressions. All the people who value uncensored images have 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 choose 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 are "in the door" so to speak, then they can choose whether they want to go into the Hall of Fluffy Bunnies or the Dungeon of Sexual Atrocities Being Committed by People with Oozing Skin Rashes. :-)
Stan
(There are days when I'm not really being paid enough to review latest files. Yuck!!)
Am 16.05.2011 17:19, schrieb Stan Shebs:
On 5/16/11 7:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 09:56, Chris McKennacmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
Your statement isn't credible.
I don't understand what is not credible about my statement? I honestly do 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 up 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 making good first impressions. All the people who value uncensored images have 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 choose 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 are "in the door" so to speak, then they can choose whether they want to go into the Hall of Fluffy Bunnies or the Dungeon of Sexual Atrocities Being Committed by People with Oozing Skin Rashes. :-)
Stan
(There are days when I'm not really being paid enough to review latest files. Yuck!!)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Only repesenting images of the Fluffy Bunnies section would have another side effect. It would not show the diversity of topics people can contribute to. Even sexual related topics need new authors.
Tobias
On 16 May 2011 16:27, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
Only repesenting images of the Fluffy Bunnies section would have another side effect. It would not show the diversity of topics people can contribute to. Even sexual related topics need new authors.
Go through http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_men at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_women and the categories that are listed in their see also. Then let us know which sexual related topics need more authors.
I agree with Stan Shebs. I would hope that his view is one that most of my fellow editors could embrace.
--Walter
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 McKennacmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about?
Your statement isn't credible.
I don't understand what is not credible about my statement? I honestly do 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 up 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 making good first impressions. All the people who value uncensored images have 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 choose 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 are "in the door" so to speak, then they can choose whether they want to go into the Hall of Fluffy Bunnies or the Dungeon of Sexual Atrocities Being Committed by People with Oozing Skin Rashes. :-)
Stan
(There are days when I'm not really being paid enough to review latest files. Yuck!!)
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 05/16/2011 08:19 AM, Stan Shebs wrote:
The photo of the day, and in general the front page, is all about making good first impressions. All the people who value uncensored images have already seen Commons by now, and the choice of front page content doesn't affect them.
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.
Cary
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Cary Bass bastique.ml@bastique.comwrote:
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.
Cary
+1 to that.
In any case, I closed the deletion discussion. Commons policy about scope says that any freely-licensed image in use on other projects is considered automatically in scope, so it's a fruitless argument to have.
If peopled don't want this image on the Main Page (and I count myself in that camp), the thing to do is get it de-listed as Featured or change the Commons policy about what Featured images are eligible for the Main Page.
Steven
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 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.
Neil Kandalgaonkar ( ) neilk@wikimedia.org
That's a no-brainer. They WILL be captured.
Fred
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
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.comwrote:
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
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
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 mailto: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 <mailto: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
I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more elderly contributors remarked on it to me privately in a negative sense afterwards, all I could do was look embarassed and say "Yes, it's a bit of a racy image, isn't it. Can't imagine how anyone thought that would be a good idea". That's probably one contributor who won't be beating a path to our door in the future.
And, at the risk of editorialising here, those who are responding to this criticism by claiming that we're asking for "censorship" or that the freedom to plaster graphic images over the Commons frontpage is a battle for liberty along the lines of the fight against slavery or for universal suffrage... need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down. Nobody is claiming that such images are not within Commons' scope; they quite clearly are, just like pictures of penises, medical procedures, and other images that people might find unpleasant are. Should they be in scope for the main page though? I don't think so, the same as a picture of a genital piercing, Osama bin Laden's bloodied corpse, or other pictures that could possibly cause innocent people to get in trouble should be out of main page scope. As a community, I think most of us are mature enough to apply a common sense test to these things, and common sense would indicate that that image was likely to be one that would cause needless offense to people and hurt the project.
Cheers, Craig
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:05 PM, 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.
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.comwrote:
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 listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I've been trying to stay out of this today, following yesterday's clear demonstration that some people are prepared to sacrifice the neutrality and uncensored nature of Commons in favour of not offending some people.
However, I see yet again calls for the application of "common sense" and adherhance to cultural norms without recognition that these are not universal standards.
What a "common sense" judgement tells me about the suitability of an image for any particular audience is entirely based on my knowledge and, posisbly more importantly, lack of knowledge about that audience. Few people on this list who are not Danish would have predicted that cartoons published in a national newspaper would lead to rioting on the streets of Copenhagen. It is surely common sense that satirical cartoons are going to be uncontroversial in a liberal western democracy?
How many people here can be confident that we can identify every image that will be inapropriate to view in every school or office around the world?
Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parliament_Yerevan_building.jpg safe for work? In the United Kingdom almost certianly so. In Azerbijan, possibly not (in 2009 people were arrested on the accusation of voting for Armenia in that year's Eurovision Song Contest [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009#Armenia_and_Azerba...]).
In the absence of this required knowledge, we will have to choose one of the following options: 1. Choose not to censor or filter anything 2. Choose to censor and filter for the sensibilities of some people and not for others.
It will not surprise those of you who read this list yesterday to learn that I firmly hold one the belief that only one of these is acceptable for a project that claims to be neutral and uncensored.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Few people on this list who are not Danish would have predicted that cartoons published in a national newspaper would lead to rioting on the streets of Copenhagen. It is surely common sense that satirical cartoons are going to be uncontroversial in a liberal western democracy?
Excellent example. Anyone who knows anything about Muslims knew that images of the prophet, of any sort, were sure to cause big trouble. The hazards of cleverly poking fun at Islam is not rocket surgery.
(Rocket surgery is my word of the day)
Fred
As a separate thread of discussion from my last message, I note that despite all the outrage yesterday from some quarters that we were featuring works by non-notable Wikimedians on the front page that we are doing exactly the same today.
Before anyone claims that this is not an artistic work, you should note that it contains sufficient originality to be eligible for copyright protection and that the Wikimedia Foundation sets a much higher threshold for this than some (many?) national legislatures (including the United Kingdom). In my view the skilled works of a Wikimedian should be considered equal to the skilled works of another, regardless of field or genera, when both are awarded the same status (in this case feautued status) according to the same process.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org
As a separate thread of discussion from my last message, I note that despite all the outrage yesterday from some quarters that we were featuring works by non-notable Wikimedians on the front page that we are doing exactly the same today.
Before anyone claims that this is not an artistic work, you should note that it contains sufficient originality to be eligible for copyright protection and that the Wikimedia Foundation sets a much higher threshold for this than some (many?) national legislatures (including the United Kingdom). In my view the skilled works of a Wikimedian should be considered equal to the skilled works of another, regardless of field or genera, when both are awarded the same status (in this case feautued status) according to the same process.
The images from today and yesterday are:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_imperialis_01.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in terms of educational vs. artistic content, nothing I say is likely to make any difference. Frankly, it's not even worth discussing.
Andreas
If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in terms of educational vs. artistic content, nothing I say is likely to make any difference. Frankly, it's not even worth discussing.
Andreas
It's not a matter of anyone being unwilling; some people don't agree with you. An image of an allegory of Liberty on the Main Page of a major repository of free images is obviously of value, as our lengthy discussion demonstrates. Snails, well snails are interesting.
As to something not being worth discussing; we make decisions by engaging in discussions.
Fred
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The images from today and yesterday are:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_imperialis_01.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in terms of educational vs. artistic content, nothing I say is likely to make any difference. Frankly, it's not even worth discussing.
"Featured pictures are images that the community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." Both today's and yesterday's main page images are featured pictures.
I am not making any judgement regarding educational or illustrative content, (both images are equally usable for educational purposes, albeit different ones) other than if two images are recognised to be of the same standard ("featured status") then they should be treated as having equal value to the project. If we want to treat artistic and illustrative works differently then we need separate standards to judge them by (instead of or as well as "featured status", I can see arguments for both). If we want to say that some featured pictures are more valuable to the project than others then we need some other status for one or other of the groups.
Yesterday there were calls that we should not be featuring the work of non-notable Wikimedians full stop. Today were are featuring the work of an equally non-notable Wikimedian and there are no calls for the image not to be shown on the main page on these grounds.
Obviously there are no calls not to show today's image on the grounds of being inappropriate for school children as it is very unlikely to be offensive to the school children in the cultures of those commenting.
My point is that if you want to apply any criteria for the showing or non-showing of any image on the front page you need to appply the criteria consistently.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 15:04 On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The images from today and yesterday are:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_imperialis_01.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in
terms of educational vs.
artistic content, nothing I say is likely to make any
difference. Frankly,
it's not even worth discussing.
"Featured pictures are images that the community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." Both today's and yesterday's main page images are featured pictures.
I am not making any judgement regarding educational or illustrative content, (both images are equally usable for educational purposes, albeit different ones) other than if two images are recognised to be of the same standard ("featured status") then they should be treated as having equal value to the project. If we want to treat artistic and illustrative works differently then we need separate standards to judge them by (instead of or as well as "featured status", I can see arguments for both). If we want to say that some featured pictures are more valuable to the project than others then we need some other status for one or other of the groups.
This never was justifiable as a featured picture to begin with. As it was, it scraped through in Commons 8:2:2,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:O...
with support comments that don't make a good case at all, and failed to attract support in German Wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilder...
Yesterday there were calls that we should not be featuring the work of non-notable Wikimedians full stop. Today were are featuring the work of an equally non-notable Wikimedian and there are no calls for the image not to be shown on the main page on these grounds.
There were no calls to stop featuring work of non-notable Wikimedians. If we did that, almost all photographs of buildings, plants, mountains would be disqualified. The actual point is quite different.
Commons does not host original art by non-notable Wikimedians that does not have an obvious educational use. That is Commons policy. Commons is not for fan art; DeviantArt is the right place for such images.
Even if you disagree with me and assert that the image does have educational value, featured picture criteria require notability (nope), high artistic merit (nope), high illustrative merit (nope, this is an independent work of art, rather than an illustration of anything pre-existing), or high historic merit (nope).
Andreas
Andreas, i would like to ask you not to spam or canvassing votes against (or pro) this image. You have your opinion and this topic is 190 e-mail long (190 mails in 4 treads, in 3 mailing list). After all that attention i believe everyone knows your (and many other people) opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***
2011/5/17 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com
--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
From: Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia
Commons
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 15:04 On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The images from today and yesterday are:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turbo_imperialis_01.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
If you are unwilling to recognise the difference in
terms of educational vs.
artistic content, nothing I say is likely to make any
difference. Frankly,
it's not even worth discussing.
"Featured pictures are images that the community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." Both today's and yesterday's main page images are featured pictures.
I am not making any judgement regarding educational or illustrative content, (both images are equally usable for educational purposes, albeit different ones) other than if two images are recognised to be of the same standard ("featured status") then they should be treated as having equal value to the project. If we want to treat artistic and illustrative works differently then we need separate standards to judge them by (instead of or as well as "featured status", I can see arguments for both). If we want to say that some featured pictures are more valuable to the project than others then we need some other status for one or other of the groups.
This never was justifiable as a featured picture to begin with. As it was, it scraped through in Commons 8:2:2,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:O...
with support comments that don't make a good case at all, and failed to attract support in German Wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilder...
Yesterday there were calls that we should not be featuring the work of non-notable Wikimedians full stop. Today were are featuring the work of an equally non-notable Wikimedian and there are no calls for the image not to be shown on the main page on these grounds.
There were no calls to stop featuring work of non-notable Wikimedians. If we did that, almost all photographs of buildings, plants, mountains would be disqualified. The actual point is quite different.
Commons does not host original art by non-notable Wikimedians that does not have an obvious educational use. That is Commons policy. Commons is not for fan art; DeviantArt is the right place for such images.
Even if you disagree with me and assert that the image does have educational value, featured picture criteria require notability (nope), high artistic merit (nope), high illustrative merit (nope, this is an independent work of art, rather than an illustration of anything pre-existing), or high historic merit (nope).
Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
You have your opinion and this topic is 190 e-mail long (190 mails in 4 treads, in 3 mailing list). After all that attention i believe everyone knows your (and many other people) opinion.
Beria brings up a good point...
After a couple hundred replies, I think it's clear that this discussion has trailed away into irrelevance. Everyone who has replied several times has clearly made their views known, and so far we've not convinced anyone to change their position.
I'm going to mute this conversation (isn't Gmail wonderful?) and will be taking any further discussion of the image or Commons Main Page back to Commons were it belongs.
See you on the wiki,
Steven
I think that enough has been said on this subject. Clearly there are people who believe this image doesn't belong in the Commons, or doesn't belong as a Featured Picture, or doesn't belong on the Main Page. And there are people who believe the opposite.
Since the damage (if any) has already been done, let's just agree to pay more attention to the FP nomination process, or to propose a different policy for Main Page placement. If there is consensus on-wiki, then we've solved the problem.
We almost always successfully solve contentious issues on-wiki through established mechanisms, and I don't see thismas being any different.
-ilya haykinson
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
You have your opinion and this topic is 190 e-mail long (190 mails in 4 treads, in 3 mailing list). After all that attention i believe everyone knows your (and many other people) opinion.
Beria brings up a good point... After a couple hundred replies, I think it's clear that this discussion has trailed away into irrelevance. Everyone who has replied several times has clearly made their views known, and so far we've not convinced anyone to change their position.
I'm going to mute this conversation (isn't Gmail wonderful?) and will be taking any further discussion of the image or Commons Main Page back to Commons were it belongs.
See you on the wiki, Steven
I think that enough has been said on this subject. Clearly there are people who believe this image doesn't belong in the Commons, or doesn't belong as a Featured Picture, or doesn't belong on the Main Page. And there are people who believe the opposite.
Since the damage (if any) has already been done, let's just agree to pay more attention to the FP nomination process, or to propose a different policy for Main Page placement. If there is consensus on-wiki, then we've solved the problem.
We almost always successfully solve contentious issues on-wiki through established mechanisms, and I don't see thismas being any different.
-ilya haykinson
Yes, the way to go. Please point us to any on-wiki discussions as they occur.
Fred
--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin craig@halo-17.net wrote: From: Craig Franklin craig@halo-17.net Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54
I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more elderly contributors remarked on it to me privately in a negative sense afterwards, all I could do was look embarassed and say "Yes, it's a bit of a racy image, isn't it. Can't imagine how anyone thought that would be a good idea". That's probably one contributor who won't be beating a path to our door in the future.
And, at the risk of editorialising here, those who are responding to this criticism by claiming that we're asking for "censorship" or that the freedom to plaster graphic images over the Commons frontpage is a battle for liberty along the lines of the fight against slavery or for universal suffrage... need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down. Nobody is claiming that such images are not within Commons' scope; they quite clearly are, just like pictures of penises, medical procedures, and other images that people might find unpleasant are. Should they be in scope for the main page though? I don't think so, the same as a picture of a genital piercing, Osama bin Laden's bloodied corpse, or other pictures that could possibly cause innocent people to get in trouble should be out of main page scope. As a community, I think most of us are mature enough to apply a common sense test to these things, and common sense would indicate that that image was likely to be one that would cause needless offense to people and hurt the project.
Sorry for your bad experience. In light of that, it is a bit galling to note that the contributor ofthe image says on his Commons user page, Rule #1: Commons is Censored [1]
Some of my works were also accepted by Featured Pictures.
But who really cares about this subjective nonsense? I don't (anymore). It is equivalent to a private organization controlled by some divas and is not representable for the variety of images currently available on Commons.
In short: It is worth nothing and is total bullshit! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Niabot
The diva comment seems perceptive, though not in the way the contributor meant it. It'sabsurd that we let art from someone with those views hurt the efforts of those that actuallybelieve in this being an educational project. The tail wags the dog here; the importanceof manga in the overall "sum of human knowledge" is actually minute. The Featured status of the image itself is under review in Commons; the link is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/remova... Andreas
Am 17.05.2011 15:26, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin /craig@halo-17.net/*wrote:
From: Craig Franklin <craig@halo-17.net> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54 I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more elderly contributors remarked on it to me privately in a negative sense afterwards, all I could do was look embarassed and say "Yes, it's a bit of a racy image, isn't it. Can't imagine how anyone thought that would be a good idea". That's probably one contributor who won't be beating a path to our door in the future. And, at the risk of editorialising here, those who are responding to this criticism by claiming that we're asking for "censorship" or that the freedom to plaster graphic images over the Commons frontpage is a battle for liberty along the lines of the fight against slavery or for universal suffrage... need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down. Nobody is claiming that such images are not within Commons' scope; they quite clearly are, just like pictures of penises, medical procedures, and other images that people might find unpleasant are. Should they be in scope for the main page though? I don't think so, the same as a picture of a genital piercing, Osama bin Laden's bloodied corpse, or other pictures that could possibly cause innocent people to get in trouble should be out of main page scope. As a community, I think most of us are mature enough to apply a common sense test to these things, and common sense would indicate that that image was likely to be one that would cause needless offense to people and hurt the project.Sorry for your bad experience. In light of that, it is a bit galling to note that the contributor of the image says on his Commons user page,
Rule #1: Commons is Censored [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3APotd%2F2011-05-16&action=historysubmit&diff=54418471&oldid=48204060 Some of my works were also accepted by */Featured Pictures/* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures. But who really cares about this subjective nonsense? I don't (anymore). It is equivalent to a private organization controlled by some divas and is not representable for the variety of images currently available on Commons. In short: /It is worth nothing and is total bullshit!/
/
/ /
/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Niabot/
/
/ /
/The diva comment seems perceptive, though not in the way the contributor meant it. It's/
/absurd that //we let art from someone with those views hurt the efforts of those that //actually/
/believe in //this being an educational project. The tail wags the dog here; the importance/
/of manga in the overall "sum of human knowledge" is actually minute./
/The Featured status of the image itself is under review in Commons; the link is:/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/remova...
Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Nice canvassing. At least it brings topic back to the community.
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
the importanceof manga in the overall "sum of human knowledge" is actually minute.
The importance of any single subject in the overall sum of human knowledge is actually minute.
Presuming you actually mean the relative importance, the value of manga is much larger than some other subjects. I say this because it is both a significant element of contemporary Japanese culture both in Japan and abroad. It is at least as significant, and arguably more so, than the American Marvel Comics, DC Comics, etc combined.
Whether this image is a good representation of the genre is an entirely different question. Just like whether you think http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Retman.png is a good image to represent western comics or not does not mean you think the genre is significant or not.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
I've never denied not being a Diva ;-)
-Sarah
On 5/17/2011 9:26 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin /craig@halo-17.net/*wrote:
From: Craig Franklin <craig@halo-17.net> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54 I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more elderly contributors remarked on it to me privately in a negative sense afterwards, all I could do was look embarassed and say "Yes, it's a bit of a racy image, isn't it. Can't imagine how anyone thought that would be a good idea". That's probably one contributor who won't be beating a path to our door in the future. And, at the risk of editorialising here, those who are responding to this criticism by claiming that we're asking for "censorship" or that the freedom to plaster graphic images over the Commons frontpage is a battle for liberty along the lines of the fight against slavery or for universal suffrage... need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down. Nobody is claiming that such images are not within Commons' scope; they quite clearly are, just like pictures of penises, medical procedures, and other images that people might find unpleasant are. Should they be in scope for the main page though? I don't think so, the same as a picture of a genital piercing, Osama bin Laden's bloodied corpse, or other pictures that could possibly cause innocent people to get in trouble should be out of main page scope. As a community, I think most of us are mature enough to apply a common sense test to these things, and common sense would indicate that that image was likely to be one that would cause needless offense to people and hurt the project.Sorry for your bad experience. In light of that, it is a bit galling to note that the contributor of the image says on his Commons user page,
Rule #1: Commons is Censored [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3APotd%2F2011-05-16&action=historysubmit&diff=54418471&oldid=48204060 Some of my works were also accepted by */Featured Pictures/* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures. But who really cares about this subjective nonsense? I don't (anymore). It is equivalent to a private organization controlled by some divas and is not representable for the variety of images currently available on Commons. In short: /It is worth nothing and is total bullshit!/
/
/ /
/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Niabot/
/
/ /
/The diva comment seems perceptive, though not in the way the contributor meant it. It's/
/absurd that //we let art from someone with those views hurt the efforts of those that //actually/
/believe in //this being an educational project. The tail wags the dog here; the importance/
/of manga in the overall "sum of human knowledge" is actually minute./
/The Featured status of the image itself is under review in Commons; the link is:/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/remova...
Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
The "Diva" comment is far older then this recent development. It has nothing todo with this current "case".
Am 17.05.2011 17:24, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
I've never denied not being a Diva ;-)
-Sarah
On 5/17/2011 9:26 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin /craig@halo-17.net/*wrote:
From: Craig Franklin <craig@halo-17.net> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 12:54 I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more elderly contributors remarked on it to me privately in a negative sense afterwards, all I could do was look embarassed and say "Yes, it's a bit of a racy image, isn't it. Can't imagine how anyone thought that would be a good idea". That's probably one contributor who won't be beating a path to our door in the future. And, at the risk of editorialising here, those who are responding to this criticism by claiming that we're asking for "censorship" or that the freedom to plaster graphic images over the Commons frontpage is a battle for liberty along the lines of the fight against slavery or for universal suffrage... need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down. Nobody is claiming that such images are not within Commons' scope; they quite clearly are, just like pictures of penises, medical procedures, and other images that people might find unpleasant are. Should they be in scope for the main page though? I don't think so, the same as a picture of a genital piercing, Osama bin Laden's bloodied corpse, or other pictures that could possibly cause innocent people to get in trouble should be out of main page scope. As a community, I think most of us are mature enough to apply a common sense test to these things, and common sense would indicate that that image was likely to be one that would cause needless offense to people and hurt the project.Sorry for your bad experience. In light of that, it is a bit galling to note that the contributor of the image says on his Commons user page,
Rule #1: Commons is Censored [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3APotd%2F2011-05-16&action=historysubmit&diff=54418471&oldid=48204060 Some of my works were also accepted by */Featured Pictures/* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures. But who really cares about this subjective nonsense? I don't (anymore). It is equivalent to a private organization controlled by some divas and is not representable for the variety of images currently available on Commons. In short: /It is worth nothing and is total bullshit!/
/
/ /
/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Niabot/
/
/ /
/The diva comment seems perceptive, though not in the way the contributor meant it. It's/
/absurd that //we let art from someone with those views hurt the efforts of those that //actually/
/believe in //this being an educational project. The tail wags the dog here; the importance/
/of manga in the overall "sum of human knowledge" is actually minute./
/The Featured status of the image itself is under review in Commons; the link is:/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/remova...
Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, The Nation's Capital http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Regional_Ambassadors_Current Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I'm going to add my voice to the "yeah, that wasn't cool". To give a bit of an anecdote, John Vandenberg and I were doing a demonstration of Commons to some librarians and cultural curators yesterday, and it was a bit of a rude shock seeing that particular image on the frontpage. One of the more elderly contributors remarked on it to me privately in a negative sense afterwards, all I could do was look embarassed and say "Yes, it's a bit of a racy image, isn't it. Can't imagine how anyone thought that would be a good idea". That's probably one contributor who won't be beating a path to our door in the future.
And, at the risk of editorialising here, those who are responding to this criticism by claiming that we're asking for "censorship" or that the freedom to plaster graphic images over the Commons frontpage is a battle for liberty along the lines of the fight against slavery or for universal suffrage... need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down. Nobody is claiming that such images are not within Commons' scope; they quite clearly are, just like pictures of penises, medical procedures, and other images that people might find unpleasant are. Should they be in scope for the main page though? I don't think so, the same as a picture of a genital piercing, Osama bin Laden's bloodied corpse, or other pictures that could possibly cause innocent people to get in trouble should be out of main page scope. As a community, I think most of us are mature enough to apply a common sense test to these things, and common sense would indicate that that image was likely to be one that would cause needless offense to people and hurt the project.
Cheers, Craig
Librarians have a strong professional ethos which rejects censorship. They understand the issue. And when they are in the news, its often some High Noon confrontation over removing material such as Huck Finn from the shelves. Our anime allegory of Liberty is not nearly as objectionable, or dangerous, as Huck Finn.
Librarians understand and are strongly committed to minimizing censorship and boards of approval.
Fred
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
.. Librarians have a strong professional ethos which rejects censorship.
Librarians do not put images like this on their front door.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
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.
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
That sounds very nice, but what liberty have you lost. The right for Commons to put an amateur image in front of millions of eyeballs? By working with GLAMs, we can obtain high resolution images of the real thing - the images which had an impact and defined their sub-genre at the time.
I don't mind if we do put a confronting image or article in front of millions of eyeballs, however we should be self-aware and ensure that we are making good use of the opportunity. If we are going to put sexual/confronting/challenging content on the front page of Commons, it should be significant, and the majority of viewers should be able to appreciate why it was selected for the front page of Wikimedia Commons.
On 5/17/2011 7:05 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
We rely on donations - whether small cultural donations or monetary donations or major media contributions. There is always going to be some type of "freedom lost" when dealing with all donors of anytime. And I'm sure /anyone/ who has worked in the non-profit sector in /the majority/ of countries can attest to that.
I assume that if people wish to see those of us who believe in quality educational images (hence the Commons mission) 'go away' which has been declared multiple times, then perhaps those seeking to showcase images with little educational merit and deep creator connection (dare I say conflict of interest, it is Tobia's image anyway, so of course he wants it up there, who wouldn't in his situation) should perhaps showcase their own artwork or personal imagery on their own website.
Or flickr, which I have been using to showcase images I wish to not release into CC or images of my self, friends and stupid things, on.
I agree with Gnangarra - one tasteless work, which has been questioned by Wikipedians/medians around the world, is not worth the risk of losing major donors - whether monetary or culturally.
Sarah
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 mailto: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 <mailto: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
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Looking from the outside i have to assume that the projects leadership is more and more only interested in donations and salaries. Should we expect advertisements, proprietary licenses in the future? Sometimes i have the feeling that the millions are wasted, while technically Wikipedia is still in the stoneage. Do we need all this projects with doubtable results to begin with? Do we start to beg for content? Or did we start we start with the intention to create a project in that everyone can participate on his own will, in it's free time?
Im not only talking about _my_ image. Im also talking about the future of Wikipedia and Commons as a free project. What if a professional photographer would take an very well educational image of Shibari? Isn't it equal to a portrait of a president in its value?
All you care about are the donors, not the writers. That seams to be fact. So lets put some honey on the mainpages and install an leading to a fly-donor-trap at the end. Is that really all you care about?
Am 17.05.2011 17:17, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/17/2011 7:05 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
We rely on donations - whether small cultural donations or monetary donations or major media contributions. There is always going to be some type of "freedom lost" when dealing with all donors of anytime. And I'm sure /anyone/ who has worked in the non-profit sector in /the majority/ of countries can attest to that.
I assume that if people wish to see those of us who believe in quality educational images (hence the Commons mission) 'go away' which has been declared multiple times, then perhaps those seeking to showcase images with little educational merit and deep creator connection (dare I say conflict of interest, it is Tobia's image anyway, so of course he wants it up there, who wouldn't in his situation) should perhaps showcase their own artwork or personal imagery on their own website.
Or flickr, which I have been using to showcase images I wish to not release into CC or images of my self, friends and stupid things, on.
I agree with Gnangarra - one tasteless work, which has been questioned by Wikipedians/medians around the world, is not worth the risk of losing major donors - whether monetary or culturally.
Sarah
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 mailto: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 <mailto: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
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, The Nation's Capital http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Regional_Ambassadors_Current Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 17 May 2011 23:44, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Or did we start we start with the intention to create a project in that everyone can participate on his own will, in it's free time?
We did but that image being on the main page has placed a barrier to participation
Any proof for this imputation?
Am 17.05.2011 17:53, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 17 May 2011 23:44, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
Or did we start we start with the intention to create a project in that everyone can participate on his own will, in it's free time?We did but that image being on the main page has placed a barrier to participation
-- 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
On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
While we are at it
do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law? do you appreciate the denial of liberty at airports that prevent your plane being bombed?
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison.
Am 17.05.2011 17:56, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.While we are at it do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law? do you appreciate the denial of liberty at airports that prevent your plane being bombed?
-- 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
On 05/17/2011 09:03 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison.
That doesn't even make sense. You're expecting a large number of our contributors to "look away if you don't like it". The fact that this is even a solution to you tells more about your lack of consideration for the end users than anything else.
Cary
Am 17.05.2011 18:07, schrieb Cary Bass:
On 05/17/2011 09:03 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison.
That doesn't even make sense. You're expecting a large number of our contributors to "look away if you don't like it". The fact that this is even a solution to you tells more about your lack of consideration for the end users than anything else.
Cary
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Do you have any proof that a large number of our contributes is even offended? Currently i see only a minority that speaks as if it is the majority of all contributes itself.
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison.
And when people look away they very rarely look back, so what comparison do you want denial of liberty is denial of liberty, you chose the words you choose to argue its censorship and liberty, why should I not be able to express my opinion surely you dont want to see me censored and my liberty denied
Am 17.05.2011 17:56, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
While we are at it
do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law? do you appreciate the denial of liberty at airports that prevent your plane being bombed?
-- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison.And when people look away they very rarely look back, so what comparison do you want denial of liberty is denial of liberty, you chose the words you choose to argue its censorship and liberty, why should I not be able to express my opinion surely you dont want to see me censored and my liberty denied
I don't want your opinion censored. But neither i want the opinion of other to be censored as well. Having an opinion and using it suppress the opinion of other is a different story.
Am 17.05.2011 17:56, schrieb Gnangarra:On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com <mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>> wrote: If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty. While we are at it do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law? do you appreciate the denial of liberty at airports that prevent your plane being bombed? -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
On 18 May 2011 00:22, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison.
And when people look away they very rarely look back, so what comparison do you want denial of liberty is denial of liberty, you chose the words you choose to argue its censorship and liberty, why should I not be able to express my opinion surely you dont want to see me censored and my liberty denied
I don't want your opinion censored. But neither i want the opinion of other to be censored as well. Having an opinion and using it suppress the opinion of other is a different story.
your offended by remarks you say my opinion is supressing you but your opinion is preventing others from participating. so to give you what you want must deny others.
The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable resource of useful, open source media content; organized and comprehensive in coverage (with accurate file descriptions/information), educational, and intended both for use by Wikimedia projects, and *as a public service freely accessible to everyone. *
Am 17.05.2011 17:56, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.comwrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
While we are at it
do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law? do you appreciate the denial of liberty at airports that prevent your plane being bombed?
-- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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 listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Am 17.05.2011 18:36, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:22, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com <mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>> wrote: Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely not appreciated, strong wording comparison. And when people look away they very rarely look back, so what comparison do you want denial of liberty is denial of liberty, you chose the words you choose to argue its censorship and liberty, why should I not be able to express my opinion surely you dont want to see me censored and my liberty deniedI don't want your opinion censored. But neither i want the opinion of other to be censored as well. Having an opinion and using it suppress the opinion of other is a different story.your offended by remarks you say my opinion is supressing you but your opinion is preventing others from participating. so to give you what you want must deny others.
The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable resource of useful, open source media content; organized and comprehensive in coverage (with accurate file descriptions/information), educational, and intended both for use by Wikimedia projects, and */as a public service freely accessible to everyone. /*
Its so free, that a deletion request was made to make the image freely accessible to everyone...
Am 17.05.2011 17:56, schrieb Gnangarra:On 17 May 2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com <mailto:tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>> wrote: If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes. Nothing is as worthy as liberty. While we are at it do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law? do you appreciate the denial of liberty at airports that prevent your plane being bombed? -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
your offended by remarks you say my opinion is supressing you but your opinion is preventing others from participating. so to give you what you want must deny others.
The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable resource of useful, open source media content; organized and comprehensive in coverage (with accurate file descriptions/information), educational, and intended both for use by Wikimedia projects, and *as a public service freely accessible to everyone.
And your position is that unless it is censored it is not freely accessible?
The validity of your position is obvious. And perhaps censored versions of Commons should exist for use by Saudi women and children, in mainland China and by radical feminists, and perhaps we ourselves should produce them and host them if only to forestall forks, but the integrity of the main project should be preserved.
We could produce special Wikipedias for Islamists, for the Chinese government, for Turkey, for Catholics, for Mormons, for Kraft Foods, and, of course, for the hard left.
Fred
And when people look away they very rarely look back, so what comparison do you want denial of liberty is denial of liberty, you chose the words you choose to argue its censorship and liberty, why should I not be able to express my opinion surely you dont want to see me censored and my liberty denied
Freedom of speech for advocates of censorship is a thin reed.
Fred
--- 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 offreedom to put a truly educational image on the main page. It is embarrassment for Johnand Craig. It includes that people who could provide tremendous support to our projectmay not provide it, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of images more valuableand notable than your original art, and a perception of Foundation projects as puerile and notworthy of serious attention. But then you think Commons is "bullshit" anyway -- apart from the fact that it gives you aplatform 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
Don't mix up two different matters.
Am 17.05.2011 18:07, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- 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 </mc/compose?to=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 </mc/compose?to=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 </mc/compose?to=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 </mc/compose?to=Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
One party, elected by itself.
Tobias
It's a coalition, as, indeed, the SED was; the unifying element is that an alternative to consensus is necessary to achieve their goals. Goals include excellence, universal acceptability of content, better public relations, and control over content. Centralization of power is a subtext, a necessary evil.
The alternative is to made responsible community decisions, for example, nominations and discussions of what should be picture of the day, rather than simply letting anyone put any featured picture up.
Fred
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary sexual characteristics is not sexual?
Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.
Your agument was about featured status not main page status.
If you wish to make this distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus then images you object to will not appear on the main page.
Historically we've found allowing some of our more respected and less juvenile admins to make the call works well.
No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are interpreting it as "low level errotica".
You know those two positions are not actually mutually exclusive
In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort.
And which context would that be? I thought we had abolished all the blind colonies.
According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort.
It's a long standing observation that artists of many types tend to avoid specifically stating such facts.
The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex than in these two cultures.
Oh indeed but within the Naturism movement there is such a thing as context
I'm not aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored. If you wish to change this please gain consensus.
Oh if we want to play that game there is no policy stating applying discretion to what we feature on the main page makes commons censored.
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.
It's possible that you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual basis.
I am not the one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not offensive.
So? That doesn't make your position culturally neutral.
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary sexual characteristics is not sexual?
Not necessarily. Nudity does not equal sex, the surrounding context is not sexual, the pose is not inherrently sexual, and the background to the image is non-sexual, so in this case I'd say there is nothing sexual abou the image.
Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.
Your agument was about featured status not main page status.
This was in reply to your comment that not everything that is featured should be on the main page. I am simply stating that there is at present no distinction between "media that is featured" and "media that can be shown on the main page".
If you wish to make this distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus then images you object to will not appear on the main page.
Historically we've found allowing some of our more respected and less juvenile admins to make the call works well.
I don't think that ad hominem attacks are a particuarly good way to win an argument.
In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort.
And which context would that be? I thought we had abolished all the blind colonies.
Thank you for making another offensive comment. In answer though, nudity does not equal sex, and sex does not equal pornography.
According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort.
It's a long standing observation that artists of many types tend to avoid specifically stating such facts.
You mean "I think it is sexual, therefore what the artist says is irrelevant because other artists in the field don't say what I think they should say."?
The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex than in these two cultures.
Oh indeed but within the Naturism movement there is such a thing as context
What has this got to do with naturism?
I'm not aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored. If you wish to change this please gain consensus.
Oh if we want to play that game there is no policy stating applying discretion to what we feature on the main page makes commons censored.
How is not showing certain images on the main page because some people are offended by them different to censoring the main page for the protection of people who are offended by certain images?
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.
It's possible that you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual basis.
What has my (or anyone else's) sexuality got to do with this discussion?
I am not the one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not offensive.
So? That doesn't make your position culturally neutral.
Other than being entirely independent of any culture you mean.
---- Chris McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
On 16 May 2011 16:41, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, geni wrote:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary sexual characteristics is not sexual?
Not necessarily. Nudity does not equal sex, the surrounding context is not sexual, the pose is not inherrently sexual, and the background to the image is non-sexual, so in this case I'd say there is nothing sexual abou the image.
All I ever learned about human anatomy I learned from Rob Liefeld?
I don't think that ad hominem attacks are a particuarly good way to win an argument.
Wait you want to censor people calling 14 year olds were juvenile?
Thank you for making another offensive comment.
Not my fault if your culture tends to take offence easily.
In answer though, nudity does not equal sex, and sex does not equal pornography.
Nudes posed on a way that accent their breasts on the other hand.
You mean "I think it is sexual, therefore what the artist says is irrelevant because other artists in the field don't say what I think they should say."?
No I think it's sexual because it is. I don't take the artist statement at face value because well lets face it anything that sells itself as anything short of a strip-joint will argue that it isn't sexual. Heck legally the windmill theater's tableau vivant were ah "classical nudes" and not sexual.
What has this got to do with naturism?
As far as I'm aware they are the group with the most widespread acceptance of social nudity.
How is not showing certain images on the main page because some people are offended by them different to censoring the main page for the protection of people who are offended by certain images?
Offense I can live with. Needlessly sexualising the commons environment no so much.
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.
It's possible that you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual basis.
What has my (or anyone else's) sexuality got to do with this discussion?
Well if you don't understand how the image is sexual I assumed that you must be asexual which would provide an explantion for your claims.
Other than being entirely independent of any culture you mean.
Oh it's not though. To start with you care about laws of man rather than some god or other.. So that's one cultural judgment. Secondly you separate speech from actions which again is another cultural judgment. There is also the position that you need to judge that certain things are offensive which is yet another cultural judgment.
Am 16.05.2011 17:20, schrieb geni:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKennacmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary sexual characteristics is not sexual?
A picture showing a naked woman is natural. Come to Germany and enjoy some time at a FKK (Freie Körper Kultur, eng. Free body culture) beach. There is nothing pornographic (sexual) about this.
Commons does not presently make this distinction and so your satement is irrelevant to it appearing on today's main page.
Your agument was about featured status not main page status.
If you wish to make this distinction, please propose it, along with a rationale and the objective criteria you propose to use. If your proposal gains consensus then images you object to will not appear on the main page.
Historically we've found allowing some of our more respected and less juvenile admins to make the call works well.
Commons and the other projects are communities. We like to dicuss things first. Up to day there was no problem, until such an intervention made a problem out of this topic.
No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are interpreting it as "low level errotica".
You know those two positions are not actually mutually exclusive
In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort.
And which context would that be? I thought we had abolished all the blind colonies.
According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort.
It's a long standing observation that artists of many types tend to avoid specifically stating such facts.
Im not avoiding it. If it was created for pleasure of the eye or sexual desires, i would state it as this. Actually this image was created after the last call from Jimbo himself. Yes it should show some kind of kink. This was intended, but nothing more then a reaction to the previous intervention which failed in so many aspects.
The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex than in these two cultures.
Oh indeed but within the Naturism movement there is such a thing as context
I named this image "On the Edge", because... Aren't we on some kind of edge currently?
I'm not aware of anywhere that exempts the main page from the "Commons is not censored" policy, nor of any other policy that states it is censored. If you wish to change this please gain consensus.
Oh if we want to play that game there is no policy stating applying discretion to what we feature on the main page makes commons censored.
Maybe we should create such an policy. In German wikipedia we had such an decission a good time ago. Closed with 233:13, to not censor the mainpage by any means. (Note: Many german contributers participate as well on commons)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Beschr%C3%A4nkung_der_...
Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.
It's possible that you are one of Kinsey's 1.5% but even then we would expect you to be able to work it out on a purely intellectual basis.
I am not the one claiming this image is offensive or inapropriate. I am saying that as Commons is not censored (other than is required by the laws of Florida where it is hosted), we do not judge what is and is not offensive.
So? That doesn't make your position culturally neutral.
Greetings from Tobias
On 16 May 2011 16:44, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
A picture showing a naked woman is natural. Come to Germany and enjoy some time at a FKK (Freie Körper Kultur, eng. Free body culture) beach. There is nothing pornographic (sexual) about this.
They you might want to spend slightly more time on those beaches. Thats not a normal position for humans to spend much time in (the back is way too arched) however it does conveniently accent the breasts. Secondly the appears to have a very low body fat percentage which makes breasts of that size unlikely.
Throw in the fact that the lighting seems to be set up to draw attention to the breast well it doesn'y help your case.
As for the feet well yeah more Rob Liefeld influence.
Commons and the other projects are communities. We like to dicuss things first. Up to day there was no problem, until such an intervention made a problem out of this topic.
So raising objections is to be considered problematic? Classic censorship there.
I named this image "On the Edge", because... Aren't we on some kind of edge currently?
No I'm not an unreasonable optimist.
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Pornography is defined as: "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
I'm not here, as I'm sure others aren't, to argue about what pornography is or was (I have my undergrad in a liberal arts major, I've had this conversation, ugh, too many times to count). But I will say - if breasts aren't sexual, then your sex drive must be dramatically different then a good portion of the population!
No, within the context of the culture you are viewing it in, you are interpreting it as "low level errotica". In the context I am viewing it in, I'm seeing nothing of the sort. According to the description provided by the creator it does not appear to be anything of the sort. The creator is apparently German. I believe that current German culture is far more permissive with regards nudity than contemporary American or British culture. There is certainly much less equasion of nudity with sex than in these two cultures.
Ah, here we are again, prudish Americans... the country that created and has exportedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29/Jersey Shore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_%28TV_series%29./ /cry
We are trying to demonstrate that commons is not a sexualised enviroment.
ease do so in an objective and culturally independent manner. Okay. I don't understand how this relates to this image though.
It is a sexual environment - this is one of the comments approving the image "i like her big tits"
Take that as you will! And if that is enough for an image to be nominated as a featured image, then I guess I've been missing the goal of Commons after all.
#wikilove,
Sarah
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Pornography is defined as: "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
It's sexualized, even if it isn't (technically) sexual. Two lines are being crossed here. One of them is toplessness, another one is "Moe" character of the image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_(slang) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_%28slang%29
Lacanian psychoanalyst Saito Tamaki notes that many people have a strong visceral negative reaction to Moe that's similar to the strong negative reaction many people have about homosexuality.
It's dangerous, of course, to bring this topic up because it gets to the heart of sexual politics. From a psychological standpoint, anti-gay feelings are very real. On the other hand, there's an increasing consensus that they need to be suppressed because they lead to harmful actions -- a person who lived in the room next to me in college committed suicide because of anti-gay harassment.
Now, that consensus is developing, of course, because of the political organization of the gay community. At this point Otakus can still get kicked around because there is no organization: and today, the RACE-class-GENDER grand coalition of the academic left isn't going to accept this as a "different kind of queer" because they're going to get hung up on "this image objectifies women" foreclosing any real thought on what it means.
Am 16.05.2011 19:17, schrieb Paul Houle:
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Pornography is defined as: "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer."
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not pornographic.
It's sexualized, even if it isn't (technically) sexual. Two linesare being crossed here. One of them is toplessness, another one is "Moe" character of the image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_(slang) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_%28slang%29
Lacanian psychoanalyst Saito Tamaki notes that many people have astrong visceral negative reaction to Moe that's similar to the strong negative reaction many people have about homosexuality.
It's dangerous, of course, to bring this topic up because it getsto the heart of sexual politics. From a psychological standpoint, anti-gay feelings are very real. On the other hand, there's an increasing consensus that they need to be suppressed because they lead to harmful actions -- a person who lived in the room next to me in college committed suicide because of anti-gay harassment.
Now, that consensus is developing, of course, because of thepolitical organization of the gay community. At this point Otakus can still get kicked around because there is no organization: and today, the RACE-class-GENDER grand coalition of the academic left isn't going to accept this as a "different kind of queer" because they're going to get hung up on "this image objectifies women" foreclosing any real thought on what it means.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
You just said that otaku are threatend as well as gay members inside the communities. Isn't this exactly why WMF should open up for such topics? As long you put this topics inside a "jail", we discriminate them as well and support unequality. Is this what we want?
Greetings from Tobias
On 5/16/11 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is about? The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise inapropriate for featured picture status.
Well, those are all judgment calls.
For what it's worth, I'm not offended by toplessness or manga or even art that is far more transgressive. I think the image has an erotic-fantasy context when you consider it against all the images one might feature on Commons, but in the genre of manga I agree this is pretty tame.
And just FYI, I can't speak for one "side" of the issue, but at least for me, this isn't an American versus rest-of-world thing. I would describe my values as being more San Francisco than middle America, and just yesterday they had a naked marathon through the city,
But, that's not the point. I'll try speaking in shorter sentences, in case I wasn't clear before.
If you want to any keep images off the main page that are "sexy", "pornographic", "offensive" or any other arbitrary label
Nope, speaking only for myself, that was not my intention. Set aside the whole pornography issue.
This isn't a notable artwork, nor is it by a notable artist.
Nor is it particularly well executed.
It is not educational by any reasonable standard. If this image is educational, just by virtue of the fact that it depicts *something*, or was produced with *some tool*, then pretty much *any* image is educational. The people who are arguing that it is educational are stretching the word far too much.
Now, given all that, it already probably shouldn't be on Commons in my opinion. If you want a forum for badly executed anime art, you want DeviantArt, not Wikimedia Commons.
And it definitely shouldn't be featured on the front page.
The sexual aspect of this image is really just the last nail in the coffin. I might not be interested in intervening if the image was just substandard, but this sort of image actively hurts Commons' perception in many communities, without any benefits whatsoever.
I understand and appreciate that many people are very fierce about the fact that Commons isn't censored. However, I would ask these people to take a broader view. Commons can and does contain almost any kind of image, but it will be entirely shut out of certain places (like libraries) if we don't have some minimum standards about what we show to people on the front page. Please ask yourselves what your ultimate goal is. If you want to expose the broadest section of people to the broadest range of imagery, maybe you shouldn't be fighting for an image that could be titled "What if Thomas Kinkade did manga?"
Now, if you wanted to fight for an image that had real educational merit, that's another thing, and I would back you all the way.
Secondly, please explain how this is compatible with Commons being not censored.
Not censored != anything goes in any area. Stuff on the front page shouldn't bring Commons into disrepute unless there's a strong educational justification. In this case there isn't.
As for the rest of your requests, I am not making a proposal that the standards change. I think this image doesn't meet existing standards. You are mistaken in thinking that your attempt to get me define pornography or offensiveness is going to cause my brain to short circuit like some Star Trek computer. After all, whoever nominated this image for the front page had their own private reasons, and we aren't asking them for objective proof that this image is good enough for Commons. The wiki process implicitly recognizes that a lot of what is right and wrong will be decided by people muddling through.
On 5/16/11 8:35 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
This seems like a good plan. But I have a question for Commonistas: where? I was looking for the page where the "picture of the day" is discussed and chosen, and I can't find it. Can someone explain how this process works?
People just create the templates, in advance. As others have pointed out it's possible to browse ahead to see what's "scheduled".
Here's the history for 2011-05-16, along with my tendentious commentary when I changed it. ;)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Potd/2011-05-16&...
I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any 'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person associated with Commons.
I did not know what to do with the translated captions, so I blanked them out without deleting them. (The only language I know aside from English is French and even then I'm likely to make some grammatical mistakes.) If the proper thing to do is to delete them, please let me know.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(cs) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(de) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(es) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(fr) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(ja) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(nl) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(uk) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(zh-hans)
On 5/16/11 6:43 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
I'm all for Commons hosting a wide array of uncensored images, but I'm tired of seeing the Main Page being used as a fap gallery for fanboys.
+1
For some reason people don't seem as concerned about the real incidents of censorship on our projects.
+1000
On May 16, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org wrote:
I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any 'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person associated with Commons.
+<3!!
-Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
I did not know what to do with the translated captions, so I blanked them out without deleting them. (The only language I know aside from English is French and even then I'm likely to make some grammatical mistakes.) If the proper thing to do is to delete them, please let me know.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(cs) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(de) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(es) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(fr) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(ja) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(nl) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(uk) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Potd/2011-05-16_(zh-hans)
On 5/16/11 6:43 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
I'm all for Commons hosting a wide array of uncensored images, but I'm tired of seeing the Main Page being used as a fap gallery for fanboys.
+1
For some reason people don't seem as concerned about the real incidents of censorship on our projects.
+1000
-- Neil Kandalgaonkar |) neilk@wikimedia.org
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org wrote:
I changed the picture.
...
So now we have a half-nude male instead of a half-nude female. Oh well. :-)
On 5/16/11 9:33 AM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkarneilk@wikimedia.org wrote:
I changed the picture.
...
So now we have a half-nude male instead of a half-nude female. Oh well. :-)
That was deliberate. Actually if I could have found an actual half-nude or tribal female in an educational context I would have used that, just to make the point. I also went looking for some surreal or erotic images that I thought could have been justifiable (like, say, a panel from Max Ernst's Une Semaine de Bonté). But I didn't come across any such images on Commons with a few minutes of searching.
To tell you the truth, personally, I was less offended by the toplessness than the tastelessness. Fan art, particular fan anime art, walks a pretty fine line. If the execution or concept is lackluster it just degenerates into crude prurient interest.
It's possible to make erotic images in this genre that are worth defending, even as candidates for the Main Page, but this certainly wasn't one of them, IMHO.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any 'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person associated with Commons.
Actually, given that the template was cascade protected by virtue of it being on the main page, only administrators can edit it. You're not an administrator on Commons, but you do have a staff flag. Therefore I'd say that's a staff action.
*Actually, given that the template was cascade protected by virtue of it being on the main page, only administrators can edit it. You're not an administrator on Commons, but you do have a staff flag. Therefore I'd say that's a staff action.*
That said, changed the picture without any discussion, only because some people don't want to see a half-naked anime girl on Main Page (btw: What is the problem with that picture? I'm a girl, and i'm not AT ALL offended for see that in main page) was a act that NO ONE should do without consensus. Not an adm, not an editor, not a staff.
And do that by abusing the tools WMF and the communitty gave you only made everything even worse.
That said, i restored the original image of the day and would love if you people decide if the picture should stay or not in main page ON COMMONS. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***
2011/5/16 Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrignola@gmail.com
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I changed the picture. I'd like to note that I did this not owing to any 'authority' I might have as a WMF employee, just as a regular person associated with Commons.
Actually, given that the template was cascade protected by virtue of it being on the main page, only administrators can edit it. You're not an administrator on Commons, but you do have a staff flag. Therefore I'd say that's a staff action.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Béria Lima changed the image back to the original "On the Edge" graphic.
Given that there are some people who think I abused my staff status and/or didn't wait for consensus, I think I will bow out at this point, rather than get into a revert war on the Main Page.
(However, note that the captions are now all wrong in other languages -- some of them were updated in the meantime to reflect the Amazonian image.)
The captions were reverted as well. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***
2011/5/16 Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org
Béria Lima changed the image back to the original "On the Edge" graphic.
Given that there are some people who think I abused my staff status and/or didn't wait for consensus, I think I will bow out at this point, rather than get into a revert war on the Main Page.
(However, note that the captions are now all wrong in other languages -- some of them were updated in the meantime to reflect the Amazonian image.)
-- Neil Kandalgaonkar |) neilk@wikimedia.org
And Beria has my support. If all of us could modify the main page content because we dont like it... what a chaos.
2011/5/16 Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com
The captions were reverted as well. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.* **
2011/5/16 Neil Kandalgaonkar neilk@wikimedia.org
Béria Lima changed the image back to the original "On the Edge" graphic.
Given that there are some people who think I abused my staff status and/or didn't wait for consensus, I think I will bow out at this point, rather than get into a revert war on the Main Page.
(However, note that the captions are now all wrong in other languages -- some of them were updated in the meantime to reflect the Amazonian image.)
-- Neil Kandalgaonkar |) neilk@wikimedia.org
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, given that the template was cascade protected by virtue of it being on the main page, only administrators can edit it. You're not an administrator on Commons, but you do have a staff flag. Therefore I'd say that's a staff action.
That said, changed the picture without any discussion, only because some people don't want to see a half-naked anime girl on Main Page (btw: What is the problem with that picture? I'm a girl, and i'm not AT ALL offended for see that in main page) was a act that NO ONE should do without consensus. Not an adm, not an editor, not a staff.
I'm not going a statement about the appropriateness of the image (because, in fact, I don't care), but I would like state that there is nothing wrong with somebody changing content that they feel is inappropriate. It is a wiki. Any action can be undone, and as a matter of fact has been undone.It is important to our culture that making changes, the {{sofixit}}, is promoted. Be bold, revert, discuss. The funny thing is though that such a situation probably shows both the best and the worst of our culture at the same time.
Bryan
Hi Aaron and everyone,
This is a really painful thing for me to read. As a scholar, my research work has been based around the representation of Indigenous peoples of North America in media and culture. I sincerely doubt that any of the "tribal members" I know would say that this is a valid work that would showcase their Indigenous cultures as anything but another stereotype. Just as I'm sure some women of Tahiti today would question the relevance today of Gauguin's paintings which often showcased nude or partially nude Tahitian women - art revered by both genders and the Western art world. However, I'm not seeking to speak on behalf of these individuals and communities, nor am I hear to discuss the creators goal or context with this featured image. It's more of the fact that /this/ is considered a choice for the featured front page and the concern that it has given me as a female contributor to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, etc.
You also stated that you do not want to compromise "our core values just to try to close a "gap" that some feel is such a big issue, if it even exists."
This gap does exist, in fact an entire mailing list (which I have cc'd here and I encourage anyone interested in the topic to join) was created to work towards bridging this gap. This was triggered by an article titled "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List" by Noam Cohen, published Jan 30 2011 in /The New York Times/:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html
A great and interesting conversation took place by NYT to reflect on this situation, which you can read here:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikip...
I do hope that perhaps those two articles can show you that there /is /a problem, and there are many concerned Wikipedians of all genders, skin tones, and identities aiming to change that. That is when images like this deter us from our expansive mission to be more inclusive.
And this has nothing to do with me being "sensitive to toplessness" - you don't know anything about my lifestyle or character to assume that, regardless of where I live or where I was born.
#wikilove,
Sarah
On 5/15/2011 10:53 PM, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
Commons is not censored. It's a beautiful scene and it would be expected that the an imaginary tribal member would not have the American sensitivities to toplessness. Some images may offend. Some articles may offend. We're not going to compromise our core values just to try to close a "gap" that some feel is such a big issue, if it even exists.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham <tinucherian@gmail.com mailto:tinucherian@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI Regards Tinu Cherian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Sarah Stierch* <sarah@sarahstierch.com <mailto:sarah@sarahstierch.com>> Date: Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:33 AM Subject: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>> Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg I mean really? /facepalm This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons. #wikilove, Sarah -- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sarahstierch.com/ <http://www.sarahstierch.com> _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
On 5/16/2011 2:46 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
This gap does exist, in fact an entire mailing list (which I have cc'd here and I encourage anyone interested in the topic to join) was created to work towards bridging this gap. This was triggered by an article titled "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List" by Noam Cohen, published Jan 30 2011 in /The New York Times/:
First I agree the image wasn't appropriate, and my reason would be that the WMF has a very broad audience. WMF sites are frequently used in K-12 education, and although they aren't perfectly family friendly, people don't complain a lot because pictures of strange genital piercings don't get shoved in your face when you're looking for something else.
In the last ten years there's been a lot of literature from Japan about how people react to this sort of image -- Saito Tamaki's book "Beautiful Fighting Girl" makes the case that the kind of desire people have for these images is a little bit queer, largely because of the visceral reaction that other people have to this desire. Hiroki Azuma's book "Otaku: Japan's Database Animals" is also important.
As for the "Why don't women do X?" narrative, this is selfish meme, much like the memes that are embedded in that image. It's a psuedoconversation that circulates endlessly but never goes anywhere and never comes to a conclusion. It gives people the feeling that feminism is present (if not women), and displaces other narratives that are actually dangerous. One of the reasons I quit my membership of the ACM was that I couldn't stand the endless hand-wringing pseudo-dialogue about perceived problems in the academic computer science community that circled around an elephant in the room that nobody could talk about.
It's generally a mistake to study an absence because there isn't anything to study. There are two good questions you could ask (1) "What motivates a small fraction of men to do X?" and (2) "What do women do all day?" Both of these are dangerous. (1) suggests that "men who do X" are defective, strange, queer, not quite right. The other one (2) is the black hole of feminism, a question that, if it could be talked about, means we'd have a women's movement, not an anti-anti-abortion movement and a collection of selfish memes,.
These discourses of lack ~are~ dangerous because they've handed political control of the West to the right wing. The system can tolerate an "academic left" that curates a carefully selected collection of selfish memes that call attention to certain absences and make other absences invisible.
One major issue in our culture is that the vast majority of people belong to a voiceless social class. You'll find that a very specific strata of people, in terms of class and ethnicity, write editorials for papers like the New York Times. Certain kinds of people are in academia, always asking "Why don't women do X?"
Other people don't get their stories told, and rather have their stories made up of them to them by people of other classes and ethnicities. They're a shadow that the articulate class only sense every November when they pull the Republican lever.
Deep sigh.
I'm all for keeping commons from being censored. I'm all for keeping all the Wikimedia projects from being censored... but on the front page? Seriously?
It has nothing to do with censorship and mostly to do with usability. You can go to Commons or Wikipedia AT WORK, AT SCHOOL or WITH KIDS PRESENT and avoid anything pornographic in nature by simply applying a small ounce of intelligence (IE don't search for "tit fucking"). We can keep the crazy censorship away if we, the commoners, apply some basic sense with these things. If we can't even do that, what school or work place is going to allow the use of Commons or Wikipedia?
Why use the free image repository of Commons if you can't avoid nudity, even if you want to? Might as well use flickr because at least they've got a check box for 18+ material.
-Jon
PS. I think this is a nice picture and have nothing against it. It's well done and a great example of work that can be done with open source tools. I just wont be going to Common at work today....
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 19:31, CherianTinu Abraham tinucherian@gmail.comwrote:
FYI
Regards Tinu Cherian
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com Date: Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:33 AM Subject: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects < gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
-- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi Jon - thanks for chiming in,
On 5/15/2011 11:04 PM, Jon Davis wrote:
Deep sigh.
I'm all for keeping commons from being censored. I'm all for keeping all the Wikimedia projects from being censored... but on the front page? Seriously?
It has nothing to do with censorship and mostly to do with usability. You can go to Commons or Wikipedia AT WORK, AT SCHOOL or WITH KIDS PRESENT and avoid anything pornographic in nature by simply applying a small ounce of intelligence (IE don't search for "tit fucking"). We can keep the crazy censorship away if we, the commoners, apply some basic sense with these things. If we can't even do that, what school or work place is going to allow the use of Commons or Wikipedia?
This is one of my other concerns. As I've stated in another message - we are an organization that is working closely with institutions such asThe Children's Museum of Indianapolis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/TCMI/MAP- this is a collaboration that features their Wikipedian-in-Residence, Lori, working with TEENAGERS to write articles about objects in the museum. This includes the students using images donated by the museum which exist in Commons. I'd love to be the museum staffer that has to sit over Lori's and her MAP (Museum Apprentice Program)'s shoulder and say 'Oh Bobby/Julie, search for the Reuben Wells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Wells_%28locomotive%29 pictures on Commons" and open up the Commons page to a big breasted CARTOON DRAWING of an Asian woman, at a Children's Museum.
In the immortal world of outdated memes: "EPIC FAIL"
Sarah
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
For what its worth this image was tame compared to many that have recently been put through the FP process, to satisfy the "not censored" ethos it was decide with much dispute that such images can be FP. I raised the concern that having such images impares a persons ability to participate thus denying the "anyone can contribute" ethos the situation is that if one wishes to participate in the FP process then one must accept these images and if these image are promoted as FP then one accepts that can appear on the main page.
From my POV that just means I dont participate in those pages,
On 16 May 2011 10:31, CherianTinu Abraham tinucherian@gmail.com wrote:
FYI
Regards Tinu Cherian
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com Date: Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:33 AM Subject: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects < gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Direct link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
I mean really? /facepalm
This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
#wikilove,
Sarah
-- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l