[Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Mon May 16 14:52:44 UTC 2011

On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> Commons-l at 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 at lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>

-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20110516/09b8d1b1/attachment.htm 