On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
<cindamuse(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've found this line of dialogue interesting but
have hesitated to
participate. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I arrived with a goal
to bring some balance to many of the articles pertaining to domestic and
international human trafficking and pornography. I soon realized that
pornography and closely aligned topics were very heated. I encountered
vulgar language, gender discrimination, objectification of women, and a less
than hospitable environment that taught everybody to refrain from being
dicks. I left for three years with no plans to return.
My professional background includes speaking before local, state, and
national legislative commissions and government houses on these issues, in
addition to obscenity and the secondary harmful affects of pornography. I
come from a long line of preachers, judges, and family members that are
serving as city mayors, county commissioners, a US Senator, and state
legislators. At the same time, I have many close friends that currently
write, produce, and star in adult films. Then there are my stripper and
hooker friends. I also work with global agencies and government officials to
assist individuals escaping human trafficking situations from throughout
Southeast Asia, Western Europe, and North America. This is my area of
expertise. And the area of my life that I have long maintained separately
from Wikipedia.
While I say this hesitantly, I am one example of an editor that left due to
the divide between the genders represented on Wikipedia.
All that said, there is a lack of knowledge and ability on Wikipedia to
differentiate between pornography and obscenity. Pornography is defined as
erotic content or material that is intended or created to cause sexual
arousal or excitement. That said, erotic content that depicts or displays
sexual organs, sexual intercourse, or sexual acts may not always be defined
as pornography. This is the case with content and materials presented for
educational purposes.
(In the US, outside of child pornography, pornography may only be regulated,
based on the identified secondary harmful affects on the community in which
it is created and/or distributed.)
In the US, obscenity can be legislated according to local, regional, state
laws. It is up to each community to determine what constitutes obscenity.
And these laws can often change over the years, based on the norms of the
individuals that vote to pass or fail the proposed regulations. At the same
time, obscenity is defined differently throughout the world from one country
and culture to the next.
Due to the global nature of Wikipedia, I doubt that we will ever be able to
establish guidelines regarding the presence of pornography. The rule of
thumb is that which is determined to be educational. This differs from one
person and one culture to the next. What one Wikipedian may find obscene,
another may not. This can only be determined by the community. Is an image
merely presented to bring shock and awe? Entice? Arouse? Or is it presented
for educational purposes? Heck, even an image of arousal may be presented
for educational purposes. The issue of pornography can really only be
determined on a case by case basis.
As I earlier stated, I left Wikipedia for three years due to the vulgarity
and discrimination against women. I returned because I enjoy writing during
my spare time. Wikipedia is reflective of our global culture, no matter
where you choose to spend your time. When it comes right down to it, if I
don't want to see it, as in my daily life, all I have to do is stay out of
the Wikipedia red light district.
Cindy
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Kim Osman <kim.osman(a)qut.edu.au> wrote:
I totally agree with you - I have never come across
anything remotely offensive in the course of editing or browsing. What I was trying to say
is that rather than being a reason more females don't edit Wikipedia (and perhaps here
my use of the word prevalence was wrong) the presence of certain types of pornography on
Wikipedia contributes to the culture which results in the instances of misogny and
discrimination you note. So I do see the editorial decisions made around the type of
content Larry Sanger referenced as being part of a wider conversation about female
participation.
Cheers, Kim
Cindy and Kim, thank you both for your messages and perspectives --
it's always nice to hear from newer voices on the list, especially in
discussions that tend to get heated and dominated by just a few
people. And Kim, welcome to Wikipedia, and Cindy, welcome back -- and
happy writing :)
-- phoebe