On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.comwrote:
That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather than the images themselves.
DM
On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
"Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a
dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free."
What's the difference?
"Collection" implies some sort of useful organization and coherence, with images added for their presumed usefulness. "Dumping ground" implies a disorganized pile, with images added at random or without regard to their presumed usefulness.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical events, places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant. Hosting a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad