--- On Tue, 17/5/11, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelgarte(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l