[Foundation-l] Racism in Commons

[GerardM]

Hoi,
What we do not want to be in Commons is another site with family / party
pictures. Also the number of dogs and cats pictures does not need to be as
big as Flickr. When this is expressed as the material has to be useful to
our projects then we have a boundary that can be understood. When we are
talking about offensive material, there are all kinds of material that can
be offensive to some that are perfectly fine to others.

The flash has gone into the pan on this one. It will be good to get to some
consensus in a few weeks time.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On Dec 5, 2007 10:13 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2007 12:32 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think that implies that at all.
> >
> > 1. Another project can always locally host an image, if Commons won't
> have
> > it.
> > 2. An image on Commons *not* used on any project is... wrong.
>  Regardless
> > of
> > whether it's controversial or not.
> >
> > I don't mind there being free image repositories.  It would not be a bad
> > thing if the WMF formed one as a new project.  Commons, as it stands
> now,
> > is
> > specifically more focused on supporting the other projects.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
> Maybe this is a dumb question, but why isn't Commons simply trying to be a
> generic free image repository?  Simply organizing and validating free
> content is a valuable service to the larger world community regardless of
> whether images are of interest to Wikimedia projects.  I can't imagine the
> point of forming a new free image project, when we already have Commons.
>  As
> it is, we often promote Commons as if it were a generic free image
> repository anyway.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>