Can you give an example of what you are considering when you want to give a sexually explicit image preference out of necessity.
For example if the only image uploaded of a United States State Park was a nude female laying on a blanket in tent and masturbating in the the state park, would you say that it should be included so we have an image of the State Park?
Sydney
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:
I think that's too strict in some ways; it depends. If we're talking about commons, certainly. If we're talking about wikipedia, I'd prefer a necessity test. In other words, would a non-sexual image do a worse job at illustrating the article? If so, include a sexual image. If not, don't.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On *Thu, 17/2/11, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org* wrote:
Yep, try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners
So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to be encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words, images with a sexual context should only appear in articles/categories that also have a sexual context. Otherwise, Wikipedia naturally tends towards an editorial policy dictated by 20-year-old single white males who see no problem with keeping pictures of naked women in every corner of Wikipedia and Commons.
Yes.
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