Question: Are female participants discouraged by the hardcore
pornographic or explicit content in certain topics or articles?
Do you find it offensive, degrading, discouraging?
The women I know (other than my mother, whom I have not asked) have
answered those questions generally with a "It doesn't bother me" or "I
don't care".
If there is either good ancedotal or statistical evidence that women
are actually discouraged or driven off by it, then let's by all means
address it, both here and elsewhere. But that claim has often been
made by a lot of men, who also suspiciously were themselves offended
by it, many of whom do themselves in fact object to any explicit
imagery without regard to NOTCENSORED, beyond reasonable values of
editorial judgement.
I am not going to lump Jimmy or Herostratus into that category, but
the vast bulk of energy expended to remove explicit content seems to
be done by people for whom the retort that Wikipedia is not censored
is, in fact, a completely legitimate and completely adequate response.
They in fact make it harder for reasonable editorial judgement types
to engage in discussion, as they're not very good at disguising their
underlying moral contempt for that material and their fears that it
will indelibly contaminate their precious children.
Actual offensiveness to women or discouragement of women contributors
are a potentially valid issue, if it can be corroborated.
Thanks.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Mon, 14/2/11, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Herostratus/Hardco…
He has now asked for mediation.
Although I agree with the position taken in the essay, and,
indeed, would
go much further, I doubt this is the issue to lead on. It
has done me no
good.
I don't think so far it has done anyone any good who has tried to argue for
a more mature attitude towards pornographic content, Jimbo and Herostratus
included. Or for an attitude towards this content that more closely matches
that employed by what we call reliable sources. Yet it is an issue that cannot
be bypassed. Once a more mature community consensus on this issue is reached,
a lot of other things will fall into place. It is a key issue, and an
emblematic reflection of the present community demographics which we are
hoping to change.
That said, it should be possible to resurrect the
essay in
the Wikipedia
namespace if others are motivated to do so, and the
author's WP:OWN
issues are dealt with.
Herostratus makes the point that --
"Look, the Britannica doesn't host porn. Are they 'censored'? Of course
not.
They are exercising editoral judgement. I think it'd be silly to say 'The
Britannica is censored'. The Great Chinese Encyclopedia (or whatever they
have) is censored, and that's totally different."
It is a sensible point, yet is always greeted with a chorus of "Wikipedia is
not censored."
To be clear: Wikipedia is not Britannica, and we will cover and illustrate
topics, including sexual topics, that Britannica does not. I am not saying
that Wikipedia must not have nudity in an article like hogtie bondage, or
that Commons must not have creampie images. Reliably published sex manuals
etc. have similar images. But we should not blaze a trail on Wikipedia's
pages that is way beyond mainstream publishing. We make a policy commitment
not to go beyond the standards of reliable sources in our texts, and we
should do the same for illustrations in Wikipedia.
The fact is that our present community standards in this and other areas
are not defined by sources, but by single young males' interests. The
bias of these standards relative to the real-world mainstream is very
obvious in this area (especially so in Commons). Not challenging these
standards where they clearly depart from mainstream publishing feeds an
unreflected sense of entitlement masquerading as self-congratulatory
liberalism. We need more reflection, not less.
I understand the reluctance of women, and the silent majority (if indeed
there is such a silent "majority"), to get involved in this area, because
it will get nasty. But it's a nettle that has to be grasped before things
will get better.
YMMV.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com