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