<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
While I had a problem with general discussion of the topic, once I
got to Bukkake article, a term I never had heard of before, I could
easily see the problem and that there are needed solutions both to
make it inviting to women and to discourage any kind of sexism
related to extensive editng of these articles. (After looking at a
dozen of these articles in last couple days I noticed I've had run
ins on other types of articles with a few of the editors that were
uncomfortable.) <br>
<br>
First, note that Bukkake is an example of the infamous "circle jerk"
(a notable male only activity with lots of WP:RS) but not only is
there *no article about it,* but the term forwarded to an article
about people masturbating each other - not even accurate. <br>
<br>
And of course Gay Bukkake which I just searched and has WP:RS isn't
mentioned. So instead of two similar graphics of a woman being the
object, they obviously need one with a man being the object. The
"snowballing" article, something else new to me similarly showed
two women doing it, even though overwhelmingly it is gay men and
heterosexual couples doing it. All that just shows quite a bit of
sexist and even homophobic POV.<br>
<br>
Anyway, more females and gay males (another under-represented
here?) willing to deal with these POVs would help. Plus two
suggestions below.<br>
<br>
Also, admin wise, maybe Sexual Content needs its own ANI do it
doesn't freak out all the people who don't want to hear about it. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/17/2011 1:15 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D5D65BB.3050401@wikimedia.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> It's absolutely possible to deal with this by simply following the
principle of "least surprise".
In this specific case, the problem could easily have been avoided by:
a) Moving "Bukkake" to "Bukkake (Sexual Act)"
b) Making the "Bukkake" page a disambiguation page with a pointer to
"Udon" and one to the sexual activity.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial" size="2">--- On </font><b
style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;">Thu, 17/2/11, Ryan
Kaldari <i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rkaldari@wikimedia.org"><rkaldari@wikimedia.org></a></i></b><font
class="Apple-style-span" face="arial" size="2"> wrote:</font><br>
Yep, try <a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
class="yiv1432933040moz-txt-link-freetext" target="_blank"
href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners</a><br>
<br>
So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to
be encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words,
images with a sexual context should only appear in
articles/categories that also have a sexual context. Otherwise,
Wikipedia naturally tends towards an editorial policy dictated by
20-year-old single white males who see no problem with keeping
pictures of naked women in every corner of Wikipedia and Commons.
</body>
</html>