On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Andreas K.
<jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My wife pointed me to this animation a couple of
days ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%22Donkey_punch%22_(animated).gif
It is/was included (there is currently edit-warring about it) in the
Donkey punch article in the English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch
This has been one of the most viewed articles in Wikipedia of late, with
nearly 400,000 page views this last month.
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Donkey_punch
Views?
Speaking purely as an editor...
I don't care if we had a majority of female editors. That image is just
awful as an encyclopedia illustration -- it's the kind of thing you see on
Tumblr or 4chan.
Practically speaking, I doubt Commons will delete it, but I think people
who feel strongly should just comment on the Wikipedia talk page.
There is a discussion on the article talk page, as well as Jimbo's talk
page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Seriously.3F
The problem, Steven, is that established editors rarely show up on pages
about topics like pornography or sexual slang -- perhaps because they don't
want to have such article titles in their edit history -- and a small group
of NOTCENSORED advocates is enough to keep these articles in a 4chan state.
On both sides, it is always pretty much the same dozen editors or so who
meet for another NOTCENSORED war. And usually the NOTCENSORED crowd win,
unless Jimbo comes riding in on his white horse, as he did in the Pregnancy
article. That's not a good system.
Established and responsible editors beaver away on learned articles that
get 30 views a day, which is all very well, but this article received
129,000 views in just one day last month. These articles are our calling
cards, and our recruitment posters. For better or worse, they tell
potential new editors out there what we are about.
Andreas
.gif){kind=link}