Hi all,
Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology.
I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWE. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example.
-- Allie
Oh, this was not good. I wonder how many of these were taken and uploaded voluntarily.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal
Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales
From: cooties@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi all, Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology. I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWE. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example. -- Allie _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi again,
Admin User:Evula attempted to delete them per COM:SCOPE but every single one was immediately restored. People are now yelling at him on his talk page.
-- Allie
On May 17, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson l_guldbrandsson@hotmail.com wrote:
Oh, this was not good. I wonder how many of these were taken and uploaded voluntarily.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal
Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales
From: cooties@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi all,
Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology.
I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWE. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example.
-- Allie
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Wow, that escalated fast. All caps and demands. I can in some fashion understand the argument made in the section above (without caps lock), but still, nah. It's gratuitous.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal
Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales
From: cooties@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:09:49 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi again, Admin User:Evula attempted to delete them per COM:SCOPE but every single one was immediately restored. People are now yelling at him on his talk page. -- Allie On May 17, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson l_guldbrandsson@hotmail.com wrote:Oh, this was not good. I wonder how many of these were taken and uploaded voluntarily.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal
Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales
From: cooties@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi all, Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology. I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWE. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example. -- Allie _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap______________________... Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
By the way, I am constantly surprised at the tone in some of the discussions on Commons. I rarely meet that normally on Swedish WIkipedia. But I am not naive about it. I know that it exists. Some time ago, I wrote a blog post about how there is actually several encyclopedias all rolled together under the same trademark. Each encyclopedia has its own culture, and quality. For instance, the articles about birds on svwp are second to none, even enwp. That's because we have a large ornithologically interested group of Swedish Wikipedians. There, the discussion climate is friendly and result oriented. In other areas, the quality is lower, but so is the level of discussion.
http://wikimediasverige.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/det-finns-inte-bara-en-wiki...
Here the tone seems hostile and the level of quality low. I wish I had a good answer on how to counter that.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal
Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales
From: l_guldbrandsson@hotmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:20:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Wow, that escalated fast. All caps and demands. I can in some fashion understand the argument made in the section above (without caps lock), but still, nah. It's gratuitous.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal
Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales
From: cooties@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:09:49 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi again, Admin User:Evula attempted to delete them per COM:SCOPE but every single one was immediately restored. People are now yelling at him on his talk page. -- Allie On May 17, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson l_guldbrandsson@hotmail.com wrote:Oh, this was not good. I wonder how many of these were taken and uploaded voluntarily.
Best wishes,
Lennart Guldbrandsson
Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal
Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05
"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales
From: cooties@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi all, Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology. I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWE. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example. -- Allie _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap______________________... Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity.
The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."
I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However...
Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects?
-george
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity.
The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!&category=Nude+po... answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails
-Ole.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However...
Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects?
-george
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity.
The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Bling-bling - table.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bling-bling_-_table.jpg(An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read "<table>") is in use on the fr.wikipedia's article on sexual objectification.
Torso of nude woman with facebook like button.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torso_of_nude_woman_with_facebook_like_button.jpgis being used on a Russian wikinews article about Facebook's like button. I guess the fact that it's painted onto a nude woman is a bonus? It's also used on pt.wikipedia's body painting article.
Outer labia piercing.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outer_labia_piercing.jpg(Close up of a female crotch wearing pink panties pushed aside to reveal a large ring piercing through the outer labia. Another person's hand, with "<a>" written in rhinestones, is pulling on the ring. Get it! Link!) is used on a number of genital piercing articles.
Need to stop. Too depressing.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen ole@palnatoke.orgwrote:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!&category=Nude+po... answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails
-Ole.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However...
Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects?
-george
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity.
The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi,
I'd like to ask that people don't use this mailing list to get into in depth explanations of what the images look like. Simply saying "NSFW" is good enough for me.
I can tell by reading the captions 1) I don't want to look at them 2) I don't want to hear what they look like.
It's as uncomfortable for me to read and hear the descriptions, as it is for me to see the descriptions.
Thanks,
Sarah
who is no longer a moderator here, but had to say something.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:
Bling-bling - table.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bling-bling_-_table.jpg(An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read "<table>") is in use on the fr.wikipedia's article on sexual objectification.
Torso of nude woman with facebook like button.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torso_of_nude_woman_with_facebook_like_button.jpgis being used on a Russian wikinews article about Facebook's like button. I guess the fact that it's painted onto a nude woman is a bonus? It's also used on pt.wikipedia's body painting article.
Outer labia piercing.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outer_labia_piercing.jpg(Close up of a female crotch wearing pink panties pushed aside to reveal a large ring piercing through the outer labia. Another person's hand, with "<a>" written in rhinestones, is pulling on the ring. Get it! Link!) is used on a number of genital piercing articles.
Need to stop. Too depressing.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen <ole@palnatoke.org
wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!&category=Nude+po... answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails
-Ole.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However...
Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects?
-george
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity.
The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I apologize Sarah. I thought that descriptions of the images would allow those who cannot view them to evaluate the contents if they wish. It will not happen again.
Nepenthe
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I'd like to ask that people don't use this mailing list to get into in depth explanations of what the images look like. Simply saying "NSFW" is good enough for me.
I can tell by reading the captions 1) I don't want to look at them 2) I don't want to hear what they look like.
It's as uncomfortable for me to read and hear the descriptions, as it is for me to see the descriptions.
Thanks,
Sarah
who is no longer a moderator here, but had to say something.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.comwrote:
Bling-bling - table.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bling-bling_-_table.jpg(An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read "<table>") is in use on the fr.wikipedia's article on sexual objectification.
Torso of nude woman with facebook like button.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torso_of_nude_woman_with_facebook_like_button.jpgis being used on a Russian wikinews article about Facebook's like button. I guess the fact that it's painted onto a nude woman is a bonus? It's also used on pt.wikipedia's body painting article.
Outer labia piercing.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outer_labia_piercing.jpg(Close up of a female crotch wearing pink panties pushed aside to reveal a large ring piercing through the outer labia. Another person's hand, with "<a>" written in rhinestones, is pulling on the ring. Get it! Link!) is used on a number of genital piercing articles.
Need to stop. Too depressing.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen < ole@palnatoke.org> wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!&category=Nude+po... answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails
-Ole.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert < george.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However...
Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects?
-george
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity.
The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
*Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, "booth babes" and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than an outright attempt to titillate. Are random artistic images in Commons scope?
Of course, a lot of the creepier denizens of Commons probably can't appreciate that distinction. The reaction that EVula got is really disappointing.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Alison Cassidy cooties@mac.com wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technologyhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology.
I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWEhttp://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example.
-- Allie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The reaction that EVula got /is/ disappointing. But so is EVula's reaction to the reaction. Is it any surprise that someone who proclaims Commons to be "a fucking joke" and a "cesspool" isn't going to get congratulated for an out-of-process deletion?
This is the biggest problem I have. When even Jimbo can't talk about Commons without disparagement, it undermines everything that we're trying to do over there. The notion that consent for the photograph is different from consent to be disseminated on Commons is a new one to many of us (no matter how much sense it makes), and it takes time for that notion to spread through the Commons community.
Moreover, the vast majority of Commons contributors - and Commons content, for that matter - are well outside these controversial areas. It's extremely discouraging to see all of Commons painted with this broad brush when we're really dealing with a small number of people who are largely acting in good faith to defend free content (and, true, an even smaller number who just like to see pictures of naked people).
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Michelle Gallaway [mailto:mgallaway@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 18 May 2013 00:40 To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, "booth babes" and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than an outright attempt to titillate. Are random artistic images in Commons scope?
Of course, a lot of the creepier denizens of Commons probably can't appreciate that distinction. The reaction that EVula got is really disappointing.