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(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

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-wik… 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(a)hotmail.com To: gendergap(a)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(a)mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:09:49 -0700 To: gendergap(a)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(a)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(a)mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 To: gendergap(a)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(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 _______________________________________________ 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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Bling-bling - table.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bling-bling_-_table.jpg… 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.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torso_of_nude_woman_wi… 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.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outer_labia_piercing… 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 &lt;ole(a)palnatoke.org&gt;wrote;wrote:

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 &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote:

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.