On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather > than the images themselves. > > DM > > > > > On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard <pathosch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfr...@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 considered 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 voyeurism. If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all. -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
