[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
innocentkiller at gmail.com
Fri Jan 30 03:09:21 UTC 2009
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com>wrote:
> That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather
> than the images themselves.
> On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard <pathoschild at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at 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
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
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
More information about the foundation-l