Not true. <br><br>In fact the careless way that these images are categorized and linked to inappropriate articles is one of my main concerns.<br><br>Often sexually explicit or sexually titillating images placed in very mundane categories like electric fan, couch, or coca cola. <br>
<br>So when these topic are linked to Commons the sexual content appears without the person expecting it.<br><br>My attempts to fix this on a case by case basis are often reverted. <br><br>When I discuss it with the some of the people reverting, I'm told that I denying people the ability to find these images...censorship.<br>
<br>Sydney<br><br> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Nepenthe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:topazbutterfly@gmail.com">topazbutterfly@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
An important point to remember about images depicting sexual practices on Wikipedia: one has to look for them. In order to see the image stirring so much controversy, one actually has to visit "Bukkake". This isn't Playboy calendars on the wall, it's Playboys under the mattress in a different city. <br>
<br>Unless our missing female contributors are entering through the site through pornography and sexuality pages, it's relatively unlikely that they will see any of these images. Perhaps it is possible to exclude them from "Random page", in which case a person offended by the images would never see them unless they looked for them specifically. <br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>Nepenthe</font><br></blockquote></div><br>