What Craig said. I can think of 3 staffers on my *team* with tattoos. If people have a problem with ink - more accurately, if we have people who are willing to judge the worth, value and professionalism of others based purely on the presence of tattoos - I don't particularly mind how we come off to them. I imagine we probably wouldn't get on anyway.
On 12 July 2013 12:02, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I think what's really offensive here is the implication that having a tat means that you're not professional. I don't have any ink myself, but I respect the choice of those who do.
To be honest, I like the occasionally goofy pictures and profiles on the WMF staff page; it shows that there are real people (and a tiger!) working there and not just corporate drones.
Cheers, Craig
On 12 July 2013 18:18, Eddy Paine blogginged@outlook.com wrote:
Dan, A placeholder for people without pictures shouldn't be a problem. Thats common use. And they are all the same so thats a OK thing. The picture of Rory is a picture of Rory. It even says its a mascot and I agree with Erik we need Tux for Engineering. And no, we are not in the 1950's but as a international organisation we should still keep in mind that tattoos aren't accepted world wide.
Placing
your tattoo on a staff page and your face faded away is provocating the fact that he has tattoo's and not proffesional. Secondly all staff pictures are made by a professional photographer? Or kind of in the same setting. That will keep the page uniform also. Ed
From: swatjester@gmail.com Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:02:56 -0400 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Staff Images
I don't see any problem with it. I'm not sure how it is somehow more unprofessional than "absentee" (for lack of a better term) pictures
being
labeled "Cloak of invisibility?" Or the picture of Rory as "mascot"?
Further, what does "all but neutral" mean?
Really, aren't there better things to do than play morality police
because
someone "might" be upset about some ink? This isn't the 1950's. Who is upset, and why?
-Dan
Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Eddy Paine blogginged@outlook.com
wrote:
Hi, While its maybe not something for the whole community. Since only
Staff
can edit Wikimedia Foundation website I believe this will be the
correct
place to post this. I feel that the staff images on the Foundation site should show the
staff
in a good way where nobody can have a problem with it. The images
being
made by professionals for that. I believe the image Brandon Harris is using since this night is not suitable for a staff picture. The ink he is showing can discourage
people
and the picture is all but neutral. Secondly he isn't even really on
the
picture his is faded out. I would strongly advice to keep the images there proffesional. Ed _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe