Could you explain what you mean with GLAM? Not anyone is used to such terms.
Greatings from Tobias Oelgarte Am 16.05.2011 16:52, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
