2011/2/17 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com
--- On Wed, 16/2/11, ChaoticFluffy chaoticfluffy@gmail.com wrote:
Joseph and Andreas, I think you're assuming facts not in evidence here, so to speak. If you disapprove of porn or the pornmaking process, that's got nothing to do with wikipedia.
I'd like to second ChaoticFluffy. Andreas seems to me on a crusade against pornography in Wikipedia. I won't suggest that it hasn't anything to do with the gendergap. Maybe Wikipedia would gain a few more female editors by deleting all these pictures. I am sure Wikipedia would also attract much more Muslim editors if the pictures of the prophet Muhammad were deleted. Same goes for Baha'i and other religious groups.
We don't give in for a reason. And that's the same reason as why Wikipedia shows pornographic pictures. I fail to see why an encyclopedia article about a tractor should show a picture about its subject, but an article about a sexual practice should not show any pictures. "Mama, why are there no pictures in the articles about sex in Wikipedia?" "Oh, some men decided that such content would displease and disturb the tender souls of women and children, so they deleted it." Thank you very much. This is so 19th century.
greetings, elian PS: and just a suggestion: "Come on guys" in an edit summary is not a very inviting comment for women to participate in a debate.