W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Acceptable media.

From: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:42:15 -0400
Message-ID: <5091A947.7030807@garbee.me>
To: public-webplatform@w3.org
So, it sound so far like we should go with, "As long as it isn't obscene 
we can have a laugh."  I'm down with that as long as others are.  I just 
saw that and professionalism jumped into my head straight away compared 
to having fun.

So at this point the main question would be, Does anyone simply outright 
object to non-professional style images?

-Garbee

On 10/31/2012 6:37 PM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me 
> <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>> wrote:
>
>     I somehow ended up checking recent uploads and found this little
>     treat [1].  While funny, I am wondering if we should have some
>     terms for acceptable media that is uploaded to the site?  I think
>     we should ask images be more professional than this.
>
>
> Whoa, at first glance I thought that was a cat with a recent surgical 
> wound (gross!). Other than that concern about this particular image, 
> however, pictures that are a bit irreverent don't personally bother me.
>
> On the one hand, we want to create a credible site 
> that professionals can trust. On the other, WPD is part of the 
> internet ecosystem--an ecosystem that has a certain kind of irreverent 
> humor. I'm /personally /fine with images that are irreverent as long 
> as they aren't over the top or potentially offensive.
>
>
>     Thoughts?
>
>     Thanks,
>     -Garbee
>
>     [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/File:box_baco.jpg
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 22:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:34 UTC