I agree with what Beria says here. And I think it's a very important distinction, especially when comparing to Sue's blog post. Sue's post was about the article "pregnancy" -- not an article about pornography.

On a personal level, I happen to agree with you that there's lots of pornographic material on Wikipedia that doesn't really advance its status as an encyclopedia. If I had the luxury of designing Wikipedia myself, it probably wouldn't have an article on "cumshot." But our personal opinions are not really the point.

What you're proposing, to delete such an image, goes pretty strongly against long-standing ideas about what Wikipedia is. I wouldn't suggest taking on an effort to make such a change without a great deal of effort to absorb the related discussions over the years, and thinking carefully about what new ideas you might have to bring to the discussion that hasn't been discussed before.

-Pete


On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Béria Lima wrote:

Katrin, I hate to be captain obvious here, but: Do you know that "cun shot" is a porn related term right? Only used in Porn related articles (see related articles)? And that what is in the article isn't a picture, but a illustration?

I do agreed when people complained about the naked gardening article and pic, because isn't a sex related article. But this IS a sex related article, not only, this one is a PORN related article. Is not like someone will fall there accidentally by looking for Jesus or Santa. Therefore, I don't see the reason to censor the article.
 ____
Béria Lima

Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.


On 27 April 2012 08:51, Katrin Rönicke <katroe@yahoo.de> wrote:
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

-----------

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


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

Pete Forsyth
503-383-9454 mobile