Re: Acceptable media.

Perhaps we owe it to our audience to keep images only if they are RELEVANT
as well as inoffensive, not obscene, etc. What's relevant about a cat with
a strip of bacon taped to it's ribs? Funny, maybe, but...
+Scott



On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote:

>  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>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
>>
>>
>
>