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.
Ryan Kaldari
On 2/17/11 11:55 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
Not true.
In fact the careless way that these images are categorized and linked
to inappropriate articles is one of my main concerns.
Often sexually explicit or sexually titillating images placed in very
mundane categories like electric fan, couch, or coca cola.
So when these topic are linked to Commons the sexual content appears
without the person expecting it.
My attempts to fix this on a case by case basis are often reverted.
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.
Sydney
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Nepenthe <topazbutterfly(a)gmail.com
<mailto:topazbutterfly@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
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.
Nepenthe
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap