<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Yep, try
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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.<br>
<br>
Ryan Kaldari<br>
<br>
On 2/17/11 11:55 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin6h4Ku3u8wZryq0JFXkXScqcwH2ih5eU-Pd5s4@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:topazbutterfly@gmail.com">topazbutterfly@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; 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>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>