There are two questions:
Reactions of women (from nun to sex worker)
Whether the image in question has educational value in the context it is
used. (sliding scale here from pairing of pinups with autos to hard core
pornography)
Multiplication of sexually oriented images or material beyond
informational requirements is yet another issue.
Fred
On 2/14/11 4:59 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
So the question is: female editors, have you come
across explicit
material on the Wikimedia projects that you find offensive, degrading
or discouraging?
I think this discussion is missing an important pointthe context of the
explicit material. While most people are not surprised or offended to
find explicit images in articles about BDSM or pornography, I've seen
plenty of women (and men) upset about explicit material being featured
on the Main Page of various projects. A few examples include:
Women objecting to porn on the Main page of Commons in 2009:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_1…
Female admins objecting to the following DYK hook (with picture)
appearing on the Main Page of English Wikipedia:
"Did you know... that after [[Melina Perez|Melina]] ''(pictured)''
stripped [[Torrie Wilson]] to win a bra & panties match at '''[[The
Great American Bash (2005)]]''', referee [[Candice Michelle]] stripped
Melina and herself as well?
Various people (including Jimmy) objecting to the vulva photo on the
Main Page of the German Wikipedia:
(Don't have a link, but I imagine it's easy to dig up if you speak
German.)
I think if there is an issue to pursue, it is the use of explicit
material in non-explicit contexts (which unsurprisingly seems to always
involve female nudity rather than male nudity).
Ryan Kaldari
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap