The line breaks are fine. I see your point about like attracting like (obscure bits of LOTR trivia and Bollywood films are our other main import). I do a ton of new page patrol - a couple of days ago I cleared the entire 30 page buffer, actually - and thinking about it, I tend to encounter the same thing.
I think the standard we need to set isn't "are proper images found in reliable sources" but "are proper images *necessary*". In other words - could, for example, a line drawing, provide the same quality of informative content as a photograph? If so, we go for the line drawing. If not, we go for the photograph.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
This is true, but doesn't help with many projects. Some projects don't
have
WP;V as a core principle - what do we do with them? "inappropriate"
images
on Commons would not be bound by such standards.
I see Commons as different in nature from Wikipedia. Pages like this one
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jean_shorts
are in many ways an embarrassment for an educational project.
On the other hand, that page is pretty much the same as what you get when you do a Google image search for jean shorts:
http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=%22jean+shorts%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&...
Commons is just what it is. But I would like to retain the idea that Wikipedia is an educational resource. Wikipedia can link to Commons, including its collection of pornographic images, in articles on these topics.
Frequently viewed articles do not tell readers what we're about, they
tell
us what readers are about. Do you think people go to the Creampie
articles
for an image of line drawings? :P. I'm not saying that soft or hard porn
on
Wikipedia is appropriate, simply that you can't judge *us* by what our * readers* look at.
What I was getting at is that the kind of material we host attracts both a particular kind of readership and a particular type of new editor. The fact that we have extensive coverage of Pokémon and professional wrestling for example (have you ever done recent changes patrol? it's amazing how many edits are about wrestling) attracts editors that like these topics and join Wikipedia to contribute to them. This is what drives and shapes our community demographics (including the gender gap).
Like attracts like.
---o0o---
Earlier today there were these comments from a female editor at WikiProject Feminism:
"Disturbed and shocked by the presence of these images on Wikipedia. Nothing surprises me on Wikipedia now. In when images of pedophilia?"
When I encouraged her to express her views on the articles' talk pages, she replied:
"Thanks Jayen for your opinion but I already see the conflicts if I intervene. I have already made a similar intervention in the French Wikipedia and 2 or 3 men have me made a fool. Nobody of the French administration Wikipedia came to defend me. The men have the law of the number on Wikipedia: 13 % are women and 87 % are men. It is that the sad reality in Wikipedia."
I've invited her to join us.
Andreas
P.S. Sorry about the horrid line breaks in the previous post, at least as it displays on the list archive page. It didn't look like this when I sent it off.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap