Katrin, I hate to be captain obvious here, but: Do you
know that "cun
shot" is a porn related term right? Only used in Porn related articles (see
related
articles<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Cum_shot>…
And that what is in the article isn't a picture, but a illustration?
I do agreed when people complained about the naked gardening article and
pic, because isn't a sex related article. But this IS a sex related
article, not only, this one is a PORN related article. Is not like someone
will fall there accidentally by looking for Jesus or Santa. Therefore, I
don't see the reason to censor the article.
____
*Béria Lima*
*
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
On 27 April 2012 08:51, Katrin Rönicke <katroe(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
**
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
-----------
mailto:katrin@fraulila.de <katrin(a)fraulila.de>
Frau Lila - Feministische Initiative <http://fraulila.de>
Katrin-Roenicke.de <http://katrin-roenicke.de/>
Meine Kolumne beim Freitag <http://www.freitag.de/community/blogs/katrin>
Hilfskraft am Lehrstuhl für Politische
Theorie<http://www.social-science.hu-berlin.de/lehrbereiche/theorie-der-politik/mitarbeiter-innen/katrin-ronicke>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap