On 5/16/2011 9:04 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna
<cmckenna(a)sucs.org
<mailto:cmckenna@sucs.org>> wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is
about?
The image is not pornographic, exploitative, illegal or otherwise
inapropriate for featured picture status.
The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally
significant, unlike all the other examples you 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. I don't need to
crawl into a semantic rabbit-hole to defend this observation. 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.
As with a number of us - this is a big concern. While I had originally
posted this to the mailing list for gender gap discussion, this is
another of the reasons.
Like I said, which I'm having a feeling wasn't even read by many - you
cannot pull THAT front page of Commons up in a classroom or
educational environment and have it celebrated by a middle school
teacher. Some of her kids might think it's "cool" or "hot", but,
if
I'd be one pissed parent. All it takes is one pissed parent, who
overreacts, to report to the news that "my kid was shown porn at
school/museum/church/camp/after school workshops/whatever' and all
hell will break lose.
#wikilove,
Sarah
Is this the only reason to justify that something can be shown or not?
What about weapons, war scenes or even propaganda shots by the US army?
Not one seams to care about this topics. Now we have an image of a
fictional figure with bare breasts and it is a problem. How do you
justify to show military propaganda?
Tobias