Hey everybody,
a friend of mine sent me a notice: the Wikipedia article "Cumshot"
has a picture which in my humble opinion is nothing else than
pornography. once again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumshot
I already tried to delete it from the German Wikipedia - but its
being restored immediately ...
there has already been a great discussion about it in the German
Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Cumshot) and its
the usual thing: moralty, a narrowed mind and everything is being
used against critics of the picture...
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Cumshot
its almost the same in the English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cum_shot arguing you need to have
it, because it's an encyclopedia - to me seems really bizarre.
I really doubt, that there is ANY need for a picture in articles
like this one.
I really doubt if there is ANY need of the article... but I would be
able to get along with it. accept it. especially if it has - like
the English one has, the German one not - a more deeper view of the
intellectual discussion, like the critique of Dworkin und the answer
of Moore. (And I really like to have this in the German Wikipedia
too - when i find the time, I'm going to edit it).
So what do you think could be done, that articles like this are not
seen as an invitation and perfect explanation for using pornographic
pictures... ?
Maybe we can come back to some points Sue Gardner made several
Months ago (talking about the picture of the naked woman in the
pregnancy article): What are the quality-rules we want to have for
Wikipedia, to make it an encyclopedia? what kind of picturing does a
good encyclopedia need - which not?
Maybe the best way of discussing such issues really is from a
neutral point of view and generally discussed for all kinds of
pictures - not only those few pornographic examples.
Katrin
-----------