On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
....
For an example of a woman exasperated by Wikipedia's handling of sexual
content, see this
post
http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html by
blogger Penny Sociologist, which my wife somehow came across.
This concerned a crudely animated cartoon of a woman being struck in the
back of the neck during sex, which the blogger had encountered in a
Wikipedia article. Here is a quote from her post, commenting on Wikipedia's
editorial process:
---o0o---
Let's revisit the serious, consensus-building Discussion page for donkey
punching:
Misogynist: "Just want to say that the picture with this article is
HILARIOUS!!!
Another Misogynist: "Same here. It made me laugh for a good 10 minutes."
Voice of Reason: "As this act is probably apocryphal and possibly lethal, I
would suggest the current picture is unnecessary and inappropriate and
should therefore be removed."
Another Misogynist: "And I would suggest that ur a fag who has a stick up
the butt."
Somewhere later down the page, while misogynists coldly discuss the merits
of an earlier illustration that wasn't animated, one says: "Preferably the
image shouldn't be a cartoon, but actually showing a real couple."
So there you have Wikipedia's "serious discussion" and
"consensus"
building.
---o0o---
That is, in my opinion, an actionable user behavior problem, even
without the gender related issues. Those clearly make it worse, of
course.
I will go look it up later, but it's probably too stale to do anything
about it now. 8-(
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com