Joseph and Andreas, I think you're assuming facts not in evidence here, so to speak. If you disapprove of porn or the pornmaking process, that's got nothing to do with wikipedia. Unless you can demonstrate that a particular image exploited the person featured in it, you're arguing against a strawman to say the image should be suppressed because it might have involved some hand-wavy mistreatment. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. You guys seem to want to assume that all explicit images involved mistreatment, while the NPOV view really is to assume that we can't know that.

To take this argument to blogs, based on a guess of what people think, what they mean, and what could in some imaginary world have possibly happened or not happened behind the scenes of a photo, would be a betrayal of what we're trying to work on here on this list. Men don't know what women are thinking. We don't need you to jump to our defense and call out the dogs over something you're concerned might bother some women, even though there's no real evidence of that. Ask us, and read our answers. You'll find that it's not nearly as clear-cut as you're assuming.

-Fluffernutter

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2008@reagle.org> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> There are some excruciatingly naive arguments being made on the essay's
> talk page, e.g.:

Is this the sort of thing that would benefit from public pillory? For example, a posting on Geek Feminism blog or elsewhere? On one hand, I think such attitudes merit public critique, on the other, I wouldn't want such efforts to backfire and make Wikipedia even less appealing to possible contributors, particularly if this is just a rat hole.

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap