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 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
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 articleshttp://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@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@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 Theoriehttp://www.social-science.hu-berlin.de/lehrbereiche/theorie-der-politik/mitarbeiter-innen/katrin-ronicke
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
+1 Béria.
Caroline
2012/4/27 Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt
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 articleshttp://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@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@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 Theoriehttp://www.social-science.hu-berlin.de/lehrbereiche/theorie-der-politik/mitarbeiter-innen/katrin-ronicke
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
NO need to censor it. Just do a second one with bushier eyebrows and a goatee and put that up instead :-)
On 4/27/2012 1:50 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
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/
While the picture could be described as somewhat pornographic, I'll have to agree with previous participants in this email conversation. This article IS porn-related, so a pornographic cartoon can be used to illustrate it, per WP:NOTCENSORED.
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
NO need to censor it. Just do a second one with bushier eyebrows and a goatee and put that up instead :-)
On 4/27/2012 1:50 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
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 articleshttp://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*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of gender in articles like this...
Just a thought :)
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Apr 27, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
While the picture could be described as somewhat pornographic, I'll have to agree with previous participants in this email conversation. This article IS porn-related, so a pornographic cartoon can be used to illustrate it, per WP:NOTCENSORED.
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote: NO need to censor it. Just do a second one with bushier eyebrows and a goatee and put that up instead :-)
On 4/27/2012 1:50 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
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)? 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
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
*Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of gender in articles like this...*
Should I ask what the appropriate equal representation in this case might be? Female to male.....ejaculation? _____ *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 16:36, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of gender in articles like this...
Just a thought :)
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Apr 27, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
While the picture could be described as somewhat pornographic, I'll have to agree with previous participants in this email conversation. This article IS porn-related, so a pornographic cartoon can be used to illustrate it, per WP:NOTCENSORED.
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
NO need to censor it. Just do a second one with bushier eyebrows and a goatee and put that up instead :-)
On 4/27/2012 1:50 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
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 articleshttp://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*
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
Press *ENTER* to look up in Wiktionary or *CTRL+ENTER* to look up in Wikipedia
On 27 April 2012 20:54, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
*Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of
gender in articles like this...*
Should I ask what the appropriate equal representation in this case might be? Female to male.....ejaculation? _____
I guess Male on Male.
Although in this case that is probably undue because it isn't all that common in gay pornography (YMMV).
Tom
A Google image search for gay cumshot indicates there are 37.8 million results. Cumshot -gay has 44 million. If these numbers are correct, then gay and non-gay cumshots are almost equally common online, and it's a toss-up (pun intended) as to which we should use.
There are really two separate issues here.
One is that Wikipedia illustrates sexual and pornographic practices that most educational sources would not. For example, I have yet to find a medical website that illustrates its article on ejaculation with an ejaculation video, or a printed encyclopedia that shows a photograph of ejaculation. So while Wikipedia usually says that due weight should derive from practices in reliable sources, in this particular case Wikipedia departs very sharply from practices in reliable sources, because it understands WP:NOTCENSORED to override WP:NPOV. In other words, it assumes that reliable sources are censored, and that Wikipedia is not.
That is not my understanding of policy, nor is it the understanding of policy as written, where WP:NPOV / WP:DUE is the senior and WP:NOTCENSORED is the junior policy, but in practice, WP:NOTCENSORED tends to win out over WP:NPOV and WP:DUE because of our demographics. So that is our status quo.
The other issue is that Wikipedia in practice IS censored by not illustrating any of the articles on pornographic terms of art that apply to both gay and straight porn genres with images taken from gay porn, even though, as we can see, both are published in almost equal numbers. One reason is that User:Seedfeeder, the artist who drew most of these images, is straight and usually declined requests to draw gay images (he has done one or two, but it isn't what he enjoys doing).
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Seedfeeder
I did once convert one of Seedfeeder's images (of snowballing) so the recipient of the semen was a male, rather than a female, because that was actually what the sourced text was calling for. And I confess it did give me a certain satisfaction to see male users complain that the image was disgusting, and demanding that it show the woman receiving. So far, however, no woman has complained.
The German article still has it wrong by the way, as it confounds snowballing with cum swapping; they are different activities. Snowballing originates in gay sex and is when the (male or female) recipient spits the semen back into the donor's mouth after oral sex. Cum swapping is primarily a pornographic practice, where one woman spits the semen into another woman's mouth; it never touches a man's lips.
Andreas
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 27 April 2012 20:54, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
*Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of
gender in articles like this...*
Should I ask what the appropriate equal representation in this case might be? Female to male.....ejaculation? _____
I guess Male on Male.
Although in this case that is probably undue because it isn't all that common in gay pornography (YMMV).
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Andreas
Some observations-
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
A Google image search for gay cumshot indicates there are 37.8 million results. Cumshot -gay has 44 million. If these numbers are correct, then gay and non-gay cumshots are almost equally common online, and it's a toss-up (pun intended) as to which we should use.
Let me explain a bit here on how search terms works, this problem is actually confounded when dealing with image searches than regular searches. "Gay" and "cumshot" or even "-gay" would be separate search terms, the results would be optimized by the relation between the first and second term. I recall hearing a seminar about how google search algorithms work for this stuff, but can't remember the exact explanation. For reference there are 78 million results for just "cumshot", I don't think half of those would be characterized as Gay. Also, the way these images are characterized might have nothing to do with the content, quiet like commons, completely unrelated sketches, drawings, non-nude photos can be tagged along those lines. The only way to say this discrepancy is related with any amount of certainty, is to look through all the results.
There is also the other point, Google has multiple filter settings, and images far more graphic than the one on Wikipedia, show up on all of them. With moderate search filter, the result for "cumshot" drops from 78 million to 128,000. And they are quite graphic from the first set.
There are really two separate issues here.
One is that Wikipedia illustrates sexual and pornographic practices that most educational sources would not. For example, I have yet to find a medical website that illustrates its article on ejaculation with an ejaculation video, or a printed encyclopedia that shows a photograph of ejaculation. So while Wikipedia usually says that due weight should derive from practices in reliable sources, in this particular case Wikipedia departs very sharply from practices in reliable sources, because it understands WP:NOTCENSORED to override WP:NPOV. In other words, it assumes that reliable sources are censored, and that Wikipedia is not.
My argument is, that it is the limitation of conventional encyclopedias. Wikipedia is potentially unlimited, go and create an article to your heart's content, if it valuable to even 5 people, it will probably not be deleted. Talking about the article in question - it stats with an appropriate description about the what it means, followed by origin and explanation of terminology, cites multiple studies by Universities and researchers, then follows up with Health-risks associated and a large section about criticisms, with respected writers, columnists, speakers, weighing in on the topic. I actually found relevant information in that article, complete with an image, medical facts, opinions, all cited and neatly arranged, I don't think it would be helpful for a someone not aware of the term, to listen to a term, and go look at images of cumshot through google, without knowing all the relevant information about it as well.
I don't think most encyclopedias can produce this well researched article on a relatively taboo section. I would rather read, the encyclopedic/informative part of the a sex act there, then go to Google image to see what it looks like, or urbandictionary or some seedy site with nothing relevant besides a depiction. In your analogy about a medical website depicting, ejaculation, it is really not in the same league as Wikipedia. Wikipedia, is for general reference, medical websites are usually very specific, they would only depict, and I assure you they do depict far more graphic content than commons can handle, if it is medically relevant.
That is not my understanding of policy, nor is it the understanding of policy as written, where WP:NPOV / WP:DUE is the senior and WP:NOTCENSORED is the junior policy, but in practice, WP:NOTCENSORED tends to win out over WP:NPOV and WP:DUE because of our demographics. So that is our status quo.
The other issue is that Wikipedia in practice IS censored by not illustrating any of the articles on pornographic terms of art that apply to both gay and straight porn genres with images taken from gay porn, even though, as we can see, both are published in almost equal numbers. One reason is that User:Seedfeeder, the artist who drew most of these images, is straight and usually declined requests to draw gay images (he has done one or two, but it isn't what he enjoys doing).
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Seedfeeder
I actually like Seedfeeder (along with several others ) and appreciate his work. He provides alternatives, to graphic images, and screen-grabs to depict sex-acts and topics, that might be important to explain the act itself.
I have never interacted with him, but he's really not the type to shy away from depicting gay acts, he has already illustrated several as you point out. He is however, I assume, someone with a limited amount of time and his own personal thoughts, you can not hold Wikipedia responsible for a single editors' will and what he devotes his time too.
I did once convert one of Seedfeeder's images (of snowballing) so the recipient of the semen was a male, rather than a female, because that was actually what the sourced text was calling for. And I confess it did give me a certain satisfaction to see male users complain that the image was disgusting, and demanding that it show the woman receiving. So far, however, no woman has complained.
I am not aware of this case at all, so I can not comment.
The German article still has it wrong by the way, as it confounds snowballing with cum swapping; they are different activities. Snowballing originates in gay sex and is when the (male or female) recipient spits the semen back into the donor's mouth after oral sex. Cum swapping is primarily a pornographic practice, where one woman spits the semen into another woman's mouth; it never touches a man's lips.
Ok, I don't know if the entire description was relevant to your point, but you just made a distinction between gay sex and pornographic practice. They are really not related, pornographic practice involve gay sex all the time. The rest I believe is some new act or slang, making its way in the sex terminology, any guesses where I would/should look for relevant, not graphic information about "Snowballing"?
It won't be a medical website, it won't be a traditional encyclopedia, and everything google image will throw up, will just depict the act itself, in all graphic, unexplained horror that concerns some.
Regards Theo
Andreas
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 27 April 2012 20:54, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
*Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of
gender in articles like this...*
Should I ask what the appropriate equal representation in this case might be? Female to male.....ejaculation? _____
I guess Male on Male.
Although in this case that is probably undue because it isn't all that common in gay pornography (YMMV).
Tom
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
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 27 April 2012 20:54, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
*Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of
gender in articles like this...*
Should I ask what the appropriate equal representation in this case might be? Female to male.....ejaculation? _____
I guess Male on Male.
Although in this case that is probably undue because it isn't all that common in gay pornography (YMMV).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculate would be an equivalent.
Fun fact: Female ejaculation is the most viewed Wikipedia article related in any way to feminism (at least since WikiProject Feminism started keeping stats). It's 3 times as popular as the next article on the list, Abortion.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/27/12 2:52 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculate would be an equivalent.
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com http://ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
** Fun fact: Female ejaculation is the most viewed Wikipedia article related in any way to feminism (at least since WikiProject Feminism started keeping stats). It's 3 times as popular as the next article on the list, Abortion.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/27/12 2:52 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculate would be an equivalent.
It seems one of the most absurd facts of science to me that the scientific community can agree that stars several light years away are orbited by planets, and how large these planets are, while they cannot agree whether or not female ejaculation exists, and what it is.
Andreas
I could have a go again, Carol. >:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
NO need to censor it. Just do a second one with bushier eyebrows and a goatee and put that up instead :-)
On 4/27/2012 1:50 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
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 articleshttp://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*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol. >:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if there are any!!
CM
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term is female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol. >:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if there are any!!
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces and the Japanese a different additional one. http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja
Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate differences in representations of different language communities. For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car
Hope it helps.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term is female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol. >:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if there are any!!
CM
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
No one here has commented on the fact that the German Wikipedia article uses a special, local version of one of Seedfeeder's images. The German version is more amateurish, and a little more nasty. Compare:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Wiki-facial_cumshot.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-cumshot.png
Andreas
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Paolo Massa paolo@gnuband.org wrote:
If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces and the Japanese a different additional one. http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja
Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate differences in representations of different language communities. For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car
Hope it helps.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term is female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC <
carolmooredc@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol. >:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's
male on
male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think
that's
ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or
if
there are any!!
CM
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
--
Paolo Massa Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org Blog: http://gnuband.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
No one here has commented on the fact that the German Wikipedia article uses a special, local version of one of Seedfeeder's images. The German version is more amateurish, and a little more nasty. Compare:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Wiki-facial_cumshot.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-cumshot.png
I noticed that.
However, the German article focuses on the use in pornography, and the nastier image is more appropriate in that setting.
The English article about [[Cum shot]] drifts into areas that are more sexuality than pornography, often reproducing content which is on [[Facial (sex act)]]. German Wikipedia doesnt appear to have an article about the sexual act.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
No one here has commented on the fact that the German Wikipedia article
uses
a special, local version of one of Seedfeeder's images. The German
version
is more amateurish, and a little more nasty. Compare:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Wiki-facial_cumshot.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-cumshot.png
I noticed that.
However, the German article focuses on the use in pornography, and the nastier image is more appropriate in that setting.
Personally, I thought the extra bit of nastiness unnecessary (especially combined with the lack of drawing expertise in execution).
The English article about [[Cum shot]] drifts into areas that are more sexuality than pornography, often reproducing content which is on [[Facial (sex act)]]. German Wikipedia doesnt appear to have an article about the sexual act.
A cumshot is not a sexual act, but a photographic recording of a sexual act ("shot" refers to the photography, not the ejaculation).
Andreas
Speaking of gender and nudity, it seems the bias towards female nudity at en.wiki's Featured Picture Candidates is still as strong as ever. And check out the quality comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Pearl...
After you guys are finished photographing your all-male cumshots, maybe you could find some nice nude male art to nominate at Featured Picture Candidates. Too bad Robert Mapplethorpe is still copyrighted.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/28/12 12:17 AM, Paolo Massa wrote:
If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces and the Japanese a different additional one. http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja
Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate differences in representations of different language communities. For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car
Hope it helps.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroeemilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term is female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DCcarolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol.>:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if there are any!!
CM
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
It seems strange to talk about "Featured Pictured Candidates" as though it is a process, or talk about "bias" -- from what I could discern when I looked into it last time around, it's basically a system that lets anybody promote their own work, as long as they know how to jump through a couple pretty straightforward hoops and wait a few months.
I still think that simply, clearly, *documenting* the process in a practical sense would be a useful first step toward thinking up and building interest in a more refined system. Until somebody puts in the effort to do something like that, we're going to continue to see weird entries on the front page of Commons (and many other projects that use Commons' front page image on their own front page) simply because one person took the initiative to make it happen.
Not because the "community" at Commons made a bad decision. The "community" didn't make a decision at all.
-Pete
On May 1, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Speaking of gender and nudity, it seems the bias towards female nudity at en.wiki's Featured Picture Candidates is still as strong as ever. And check out the quality comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Pearl...
After you guys are finished photographing your all-male cumshots, maybe you could find some nice nude male art to nominate at Featured Picture Candidates. Too bad Robert Mapplethorpe is still copyrighted.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/28/12 12:17 AM, Paolo Massa wrote:
If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces and the Japanese a different additional one. http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja
Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate differences in representations of different language communities. For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car
Hope it helps.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroeemilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term is female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DCcarolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol.>:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if there are any!!
CM
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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
The problem is, we live in a biased world where you can find much, much more female nudity in fine art musem than male nudity. I'm currently post-treating and uploading pictures from the Museum of Fine Arts of Rennes (France) and the only naked male body is a sculpture of a boy/young teenager playing, while they are lot of naked women, both in sculpture and paintings. Half-naked men are more often corpses than sexy budies. (If you want I can create a gallery with all artworks showing naked or half-naked women).
What can I do with that ? Not uploaded pictures of artworks with naked women ? Working harder to have awesome pictures of artworks with naked men ?
Caroline
2012/5/2 Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
It seems strange to talk about "Featured Pictured Candidates" as though it is a process, or talk about "bias" -- from what I could discern when I looked into it last time around, it's basically a system that lets anybody promote their own work, as long as they know how to jump through a couple pretty straightforward hoops and wait a few months.
I still think that simply, clearly, *documenting* the process in a practical sense would be a useful first step toward thinking up and building interest in a more refined system. Until somebody puts in the effort to do something like that, we're going to continue to see weird entries on the front page of Commons (and many other projects that use Commons' front page image on their own front page) simply because one person took the initiative to make it happen.
Not because the "community" at Commons made a bad decision. The "community" didn't make a decision at all.
-Pete
On May 1, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Speaking of gender and nudity, it seems the bias towards female nudity
at en.wiki's Featured Picture Candidates is still as strong as ever. And check out the quality comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Pearl...
After you guys are finished photographing your all-male cumshots, maybe
you could find some nice nude male art to nominate at Featured Picture Candidates. Too bad Robert Mapplethorpe is still copyrighted.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/28/12 12:17 AM, Paolo Massa wrote:
If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces and the Japanese a different additional one. http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja
Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate differences in representations of different language communities. For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car
Hope it helps.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroeemilymonroe03@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term is female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC<
carolmooredc@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol.>:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's
male on
male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet."
And
maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think
that's
ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are
or if
there are any!!
CM
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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
That's a good point. Even here in San Francisco it's much easier to find female nudity in art and advertising than male nudity. I just wish people would stick to commenting on the art instead of the woman's body.
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/2/12 12:40 AM, Caroline Becker wrote:
The problem is, we live in a biased world where you can find much, much more female nudity in fine art musem than male nudity. I'm currently post-treating and uploading pictures from the Museum of Fine Arts of Rennes (France) and the only naked male body is a sculpture of a boy/young teenager playing, while they are lot of naked women, both in sculpture and paintings. Half-naked men are more often corpses than sexy budies. (If you want I can create a gallery with all artworks showing naked or half-naked women).
What can I do with that ? Not uploaded pictures of artworks with naked women ? Working harder to have awesome pictures of artworks with naked men ?
Caroline
2012/5/2 Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com mailto:peteforsyth@gmail.com>
It seems strange to talk about "Featured Pictured Candidates" as though it is a process, or talk about "bias" -- from what I could discern when I looked into it last time around, it's basically a system that lets anybody promote their own work, as long as they know how to jump through a couple pretty straightforward hoops and wait a few months. I still think that simply, clearly, *documenting* the process in a practical sense would be a useful first step toward thinking up and building interest in a more refined system. Until somebody puts in the effort to do something like that, we're going to continue to see weird entries on the front page of Commons (and many other projects that use Commons' front page image on their own front page) simply because one person took the initiative to make it happen. Not because the "community" at Commons made a bad decision. The "community" didn't make a decision at all. -Pete On May 1, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > Speaking of gender and nudity, it seems the bias towards female nudity at en.wiki's Featured Picture Candidates is still as strong as ever. And check out the quality comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Pearl_and_the_Wave > > After you guys are finished photographing your all-male cumshots, maybe you could find some nice nude male art to nominate at Featured Picture Candidates. Too bad Robert Mapplethorpe is still copyrighted. > > Ryan Kaldari > > On 4/28/12 12:17 AM, Paolo Massa wrote: >> If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other >> language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. >> For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on >> all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image >> http://www.manypedia.com/#|en|Cumshot|es <http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces> >> and the Japanese a different additional one. >> http://www.manypedia.com/#|en|Cumshot|ja <http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja> >> >> Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of >> Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is >> the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate >> differences in representations of different language communities. >> For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, >> http://www.manypedia.com/#|en|Underwear|ar <http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car> >> >> Hope it helps. >> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroe<emilymonroe03@gmail.com <mailto:emilymonroe03@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term is >>> female ejactulation. *shrugs* >>> >>> From, >>> Emily >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC<carolmooredc@verizon.net <mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net>> >>> wrote: >>>> On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >>>> >>>> I could have a go again, Carol.>:) >>>> >>>> Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant >>>> re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on >>>> male. Go for it! >>>> >>>> As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I >>>> don't think women do it. >>>> >>>> Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And >>>> maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's >>>> ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if >>>> there are any!! >>>> >>>> CM >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com <mailto:peteforsyth@gmail.com> 503-383-9454 mobile _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
Is there a perception bias here?
There are many many fine art nudes of men in existence. And if you look at the body of work for nude sculpture then many are male - Pope Pius IX was so enraged by this he even went around sticking fig leaves over all the cocks in the vatican*, an utter travesty in art.
If you wander around the Louvre you will see lots of nude men on display.
Modern advertising? Again perception bias I think - buy any girly mag (and I've been subjected to many) and they are littered with pictures of half-dressed blokes. Case in point; the famous image of Beckham in very small undies.
One of my friends in advertising likes to say something along the lines of "well one good thing you can say about this industry; at the very least we are not sexists".
Nude people are popular pretty much in general :)
Tom
* ahem, that might be construed wrongly :S
On 2 May 2012 17:55, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
** That's a good point. Even here in San Francisco it's much easier to find female nudity in art and advertising than male nudity. I just wish people would stick to commenting on the art instead of the woman's body.
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/2/12 12:40 AM, Caroline Becker wrote:
The problem is, we live in a biased world where you can find much, much more female nudity in fine art musem than male nudity. I'm currently post-treating and uploading pictures from the Museum of Fine Arts of Rennes (France) and the only naked male body is a sculpture of a boy/young teenager playing, while they are lot of naked women, both in sculpture and paintings. Half-naked men are more often corpses than sexy budies. (If you want I can create a gallery with all artworks showing naked or half-naked women).
What can I do with that ? Not uploaded pictures of artworks with naked women ? Working harder to have awesome pictures of artworks with naked men ?
Caroline
2012/5/2 Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
It seems strange to talk about "Featured Pictured Candidates" as though it is a process, or talk about "bias" -- from what I could discern when I looked into it last time around, it's basically a system that lets anybody promote their own work, as long as they know how to jump through a couple pretty straightforward hoops and wait a few months.
I still think that simply, clearly, *documenting* the process in a practical sense would be a useful first step toward thinking up and building interest in a more refined system. Until somebody puts in the effort to do something like that, we're going to continue to see weird entries on the front page of Commons (and many other projects that use Commons' front page image on their own front page) simply because one person took the initiative to make it happen.
Not because the "community" at Commons made a bad decision. The "community" didn't make a decision at all.
-Pete
On May 1, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Speaking of gender and nudity, it seems the bias towards female nudity
at en.wiki's Featured Picture Candidates is still as strong as ever. And check out the quality comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Pearl...
After you guys are finished photographing your all-male cumshots, maybe
you could find some nice nude male art to nominate at Featured Picture Candidates. Too bad Robert Mapplethorpe is still copyrighted.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/28/12 12:17 AM, Paolo Massa wrote:
If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces and the Japanese a different additional one. http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja
Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate differences in representations of different language communities. For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car
Hope it helps.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroeemilymonroe03@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term
is
female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC<
carolmooredc@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol.>:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I
meant
re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's
male on
male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet."
And
maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think
that's
ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are
or if
there are any!!
CM
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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Advertising not sexist. Really.
I realize this is a tangent, but if I am going to see cumshot in my email list a few more times, I might as well join in.
Hi all!
Heather
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
Is there a perception bias here?
There are many many fine art nudes of men in existence. And if you look at the body of work for nude sculpture then many are male - Pope Pius IX was so enraged by this he even went around sticking fig leaves over all the cocks in the vatican*, an utter travesty in art.
If you wander around the Louvre you will see lots of nude men on display.
Modern advertising? Again perception bias I think - buy any girly mag (and I've been subjected to many) and they are littered with pictures of half-dressed blokes. Case in point; the famous image of Beckham in very small undies.
One of my friends in advertising likes to say something along the lines of "well one good thing you can say about this industry; at the very least we are not sexists".
Nude people are popular pretty much in general :)
Tom
- ahem, that might be construed wrongly :S
On 2 May 2012 17:55, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
** That's a good point. Even here in San Francisco it's much easier to find female nudity in art and advertising than male nudity. I just wish people would stick to commenting on the art instead of the woman's body.
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/2/12 12:40 AM, Caroline Becker wrote:
The problem is, we live in a biased world where you can find much, much more female nudity in fine art musem than male nudity. I'm currently post-treating and uploading pictures from the Museum of Fine Arts of Rennes (France) and the only naked male body is a sculpture of a boy/young teenager playing, while they are lot of naked women, both in sculpture and paintings. Half-naked men are more often corpses than sexy budies. (If you want I can create a gallery with all artworks showing naked or half-naked women).
What can I do with that ? Not uploaded pictures of artworks with naked women ? Working harder to have awesome pictures of artworks with naked men ?
Caroline
2012/5/2 Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
It seems strange to talk about "Featured Pictured Candidates" as though it is a process, or talk about "bias" -- from what I could discern when I looked into it last time around, it's basically a system that lets anybody promote their own work, as long as they know how to jump through a couple pretty straightforward hoops and wait a few months.
I still think that simply, clearly, *documenting* the process in a practical sense would be a useful first step toward thinking up and building interest in a more refined system. Until somebody puts in the effort to do something like that, we're going to continue to see weird entries on the front page of Commons (and many other projects that use Commons' front page image on their own front page) simply because one person took the initiative to make it happen.
Not because the "community" at Commons made a bad decision. The "community" didn't make a decision at all.
-Pete
On May 1, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Speaking of gender and nudity, it seems the bias towards female nudity
at en.wiki's Featured Picture Candidates is still as strong as ever. And check out the quality comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/The_Pearl...
After you guys are finished photographing your all-male cumshots,
maybe you could find some nice nude male art to nominate at Featured Picture Candidates. Too bad Robert Mapplethorpe is still copyrighted.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/28/12 12:17 AM, Paolo Massa wrote:
If you are curious about the images used in the same article on other language editions of Wikipedia you can use Manypedia. For the page "Cumshot", it seems currently the same image is used on all language editions, while the Spanish one uses one more image http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Ces and the Japanese a different additional one. http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CCumshot%7Cja
Of course this is not to say that if all language editions of Wikipedia represent the same concept using the same images, this is the best way of representing it. But at least you can appreciate differences in representations of different language communities. For example see the page Underwear on English and Arabic Wikipedia, http://www.manypedia.com/#%7Cen%7CUnderwear%7Car
Hope it helps.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Emily Monroeemilymonroe03@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure the technical term for it either, but the laymen's term
is
female ejactulation. *shrugs*
From, Emily
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Carol Moore DC<
carolmooredc@verizon.net>
wrote: > On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > I could have a go again, Carol.>:) > > Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles. > > Andreas > > So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I
meant
> re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's
male on
> male. Go for it! > > As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm,
I
> don't think women do it. > > Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get
wet." And
> maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think
that's
> ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms
are or if
> there are any!! > > CM > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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
On 2 May 2012 22:22, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On May 2, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
I've always found advertising to be highly sexualised, but refreshingly
free of sexism.
I tend to agree with Heather...this strains credibility. It's hard to know whether to take this statement seriously.
Seriously? I mean, I don't want to derail this discussion further, but as someone who responds fairly equally to nudey boys and girls both are very visibly in use in advertising.
Although; Alison raises a point about stereotypes that I didn't really think about :) as the discussion was about the relative numbers of nudey genders... in terms of playing on *stereotypes*, sure, it can be sexist to men and women.
Tom
Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes: http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water
Seriously though, it doesn't seem that controversial to say that mainstream advertising heavily skews to female nudity. Next time you pass a magazine stand, count the number of covers with female nudity and male nudity. I'll bet you a wiki-beer it's greater than 2 to 1. Judging by the last time I was in Paris, I would guess 10 to 1.
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/2/12 2:28 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 2 May 2012 22:22, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com mailto:peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 2, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > I've always found advertising to be highly sexualised, but refreshingly free of sexism. I tend to agree with Heather...this strains credibility. It's hard to know whether to take this statement seriously.Seriously? I mean, I don't want to derail this discussion further, but as someone who responds fairly equally to nudey boys and girls both are very visibly in use in advertising.
Although; Alison raises a point about stereotypes that I didn't really think about :) as the discussion was about the relative numbers of nudey genders... in terms of playing on /stereotypes/, sure, it can be sexist to men and women.
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 2 May 2012 22:36, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
** Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes: http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water
Seriously though, it doesn't seem that controversial to say that mainstream advertising heavily skews to female nudity. Next time you pass a magazine stand, count the number of covers with female nudity and male nudity. I'll bet you a wiki-beer it's greater than 2 to 1. Judging by the last time I was in Paris, I would guess 10 to 1.
Ryan Kaldari
On the principle of genuine interest I will take you up on that challenge :) and will report back tomorrow.
Tom
On 5/2/12 2:38 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 2 May 2012 22:36, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org mailto:rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes: http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water Seriously though, it doesn't seem that controversial to say that mainstream advertising heavily skews to female nudity. Next time you pass a magazine stand, count the number of covers with female nudity and male nudity. I'll bet you a wiki-beer it's greater than 2 to 1. Judging by the last time I was in Paris, I would guess 10 to 1. Ryan KaldariOn the principle of genuine interest I will take you up on that challenge :) and will report back tomorrow.
Tom
I'll be very happy to be proven wrong. I'm certainly subject to perception bias, but perception isn't always wrong. Don't forget to take a cell-phone photo if you want to collect your wiki-beer :)
Ryan Kaldari
On May 2, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Advertising not sexist. Really.
Well I'd be interested to hear rational arguments that it is...
I've always found advertising to be highly sexualised, but refreshingly free of sexism.
You're kidding, right? Advertising is so jam-loaded with sexism, it's hard to know where to start. Just about every advert plays on stereotypes. When's the last time you saw a guy cleaning kitchens in TV ads? Or a woman buying cars? Yes, there are exceptions but they're pretty thin on the ground.
Oh, and hello everyone! I'm User:Alison from enwiki and Commons :)
-- Allie
Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes: http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/2/12 2:20 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Advertising not sexist. Really.Well I'd be interested to hear rational arguments that it is...
I've always found advertising to be highly sexualised, but refreshingly free of sexism.
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 2 May 2012 22:27, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
** Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes: http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water
Ryan Kaldari
*sigh* well I entirely agree with Alison's point. But that one is definitely perception bias. The "OMG I can't drink water" thing is equally misused for guys and girls. Usdually for a boy they have their top off too (I have a trashy mag in front of me now that includes two such images).
Tom
p.s. just to equalise things.. ;) http://www.lexiebond.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/milk.jpg
Wonderful.
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Andreas
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
** Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes: http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/2/12 2:20 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Advertising not sexist. Really.
Well I'd be interested to hear rational arguments that it is...
I've always found advertising to be highly sexualised, but refreshingly free of sexism.
Tom
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc - doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say. So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Sarah
Good idea Sarah. Prove everyone in the world we don't even have enough woman in the 9% of editors who can take a picture of some "trivial" thing. Prove the world the only way to have picture of girls in commons is hiring models and photographers to take them.
I have NO idea why no one thought of this before! _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:13, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc
- doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say.
So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 5/6/12 1:20 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
Good idea Sarah. Prove everyone in the world we don't even have enough woman in the 9% of editors who can take a picture of some "trivial" thing. Prove the world the only way to have picture of girls in commons is hiring models and photographers to take them.
I have NO idea why no one thought of this before!
Beria, I'd appreciate a more respectful tone. As always, with me, and anyone else on this list. The snarkiness of your comment isn't one to make me want to participate or share my brainstorms or ideas on this list.
Just because you disagree with my idea, doesn't mean others might find value in it, and it might improve content. Not every woman wants to edit Wikipedia and I have met women who are photographers who have expressed interest in uploading photographs and also women who would rather participate as volunteers to be photographed. Using the term model does not necessarily mean traditional "model body types" of women. Anyone can be a model if you put them in front of a camera.
Again, please be a bit more polite in your responses on this list. I know I'm not the only person who would appreciate that. Thank you,
-Sarah
/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 6 May 2012 14:13, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-saladWhere are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage... To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages. Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self... Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions.... Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them... (Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc - doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say. So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons. Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter. Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today <https://donate.wikimedia.org/><< _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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, until i tell you to "fuck off" I'm being respectful to you. Actually the simple meaning of taking time in my volunteer, no paid work as a wikimedian to answer your mail show I respect you.
To your idea: Ever heard of OTRS system? I'm sure with all your "work" for GLAM you already did, so if you have some image you want in commons ask them to release in a compatible license.
HIRE someone to take pictures for us is a very idiotic idea, with the full amount of great photographers who take pictures for free to upload on commons, even more, hire the models as well can almost qualify as the most idiot idea ever.
I do believe in volunteer work Sarah, which is the basis of our wiki way. Try to get something by paying people to do where you simply don't know if can be done by volunteers - since no one ever asked - is, in my humble opinion, stupid. _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:24, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:20 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
Good idea Sarah. Prove everyone in the world we don't even have enough woman in the 9% of editors who can take a picture of some "trivial" thing. Prove the world the only way to have picture of girls in commons is hiring models and photographers to take them.
I have NO idea why no one thought of this before!
Beria, I'd appreciate a more respectful tone. As always, with me, and anyone else on this list. The snarkiness of your comment isn't one to make me want to participate or share my brainstorms or ideas on this list.
Just because you disagree with my idea, doesn't mean others might find value in it, and it might improve content. Not every woman wants to edit Wikipedia and I have met women who are photographers who have expressed interest in uploading photographs and also women who would rather participate as volunteers to be photographed. Using the term model does not necessarily mean traditional "model body types" of women. Anyone can be a model if you put them in front of a camera.
Again, please be a bit more polite in your responses on this list. I know I'm not the only person who would appreciate that. Thank you,
-Sarah
*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 6 May 2012 14:13, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc
- doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say.
So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Excuse me, Beria, but I agree that your tone is, in fact, highly inappropriate.
From, Emily
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
Sarah, until i tell you to "fuck off" I'm being respectful to you. Actually the simple meaning of taking time in my volunteer, no paid work as a wikimedian to answer your mail show I respect you.
To your idea: Ever heard of OTRS system? I'm sure with all your "work" for GLAM you already did, so if you have some image you want in commons ask them to release in a compatible license.
HIRE someone to take pictures for us is a very idiotic idea, with the full amount of great photographers who take pictures for free to upload on commons, even more, hire the models as well can almost qualify as the most idiot idea ever.
I do believe in volunteer work Sarah, which is the basis of our wiki way. Try to get something by paying people to do where you simply don't know if can be done by volunteers - since no one ever asked - is, in my humble opinion, stupid. _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:24, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:20 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
Good idea Sarah. Prove everyone in the world we don't even have enough woman in the 9% of editors who can take a picture of some "trivial" thing. Prove the world the only way to have picture of girls in commons is hiring models and photographers to take them.
I have NO idea why no one thought of this before!
Beria, I'd appreciate a more respectful tone. As always, with me, and anyone else on this list. The snarkiness of your comment isn't one to make me want to participate or share my brainstorms or ideas on this list.
Just because you disagree with my idea, doesn't mean others might find value in it, and it might improve content. Not every woman wants to edit Wikipedia and I have met women who are photographers who have expressed interest in uploading photographs and also women who would rather participate as volunteers to be photographed. Using the term model does not necessarily mean traditional "model body types" of women. Anyone can be a model if you put them in front of a camera.
Again, please be a bit more polite in your responses on this list. I know I'm not the only person who would appreciate that. Thank you,
-Sarah
*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 6 May 2012 14:13, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc
- doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say.
So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
This is highly inappropriate: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beria&diff=3706794... that is just the last one, I can give you both a pile bigger than the Everest)
And none of you are seing me complain about it. A single mail with irony and you run around claiming misogyny and rudeness? As the meme says: Bitch, pleasehttp://deborahdekrem.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/4f35923e34365_bitch-please.png ! _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:35, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me, Beria, but I agree that your tone is, in fact, highly inappropriate.
From, Emily
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.ptwrote:
Sarah, until i tell you to "fuck off" I'm being respectful to you. Actually the simple meaning of taking time in my volunteer, no paid work as a wikimedian to answer your mail show I respect you.
To your idea: Ever heard of OTRS system? I'm sure with all your "work" for GLAM you already did, so if you have some image you want in commons ask them to release in a compatible license.
HIRE someone to take pictures for us is a very idiotic idea, with the full amount of great photographers who take pictures for free to upload on commons, even more, hire the models as well can almost qualify as the most idiot idea ever.
I do believe in volunteer work Sarah, which is the basis of our wiki way. Try to get something by paying people to do where you simply don't know if can be done by volunteers - since no one ever asked - is, in my humble opinion, stupid. _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:24, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:20 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
Good idea Sarah. Prove everyone in the world we don't even have enough woman in the 9% of editors who can take a picture of some "trivial" thing. Prove the world the only way to have picture of girls in commons is hiring models and photographers to take them.
I have NO idea why no one thought of this before!
Beria, I'd appreciate a more respectful tone. As always, with me, and anyone else on this list. The snarkiness of your comment isn't one to make me want to participate or share my brainstorms or ideas on this list.
Just because you disagree with my idea, doesn't mean others might find value in it, and it might improve content. Not every woman wants to edit Wikipedia and I have met women who are photographers who have expressed interest in uploading photographs and also women who would rather participate as volunteers to be photographed. Using the term model does not necessarily mean traditional "model body types" of women. Anyone can be a model if you put them in front of a camera.
Again, please be a bit more polite in your responses on this list. I know I'm not the only person who would appreciate that. Thank you,
-Sarah
*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 6 May 2012 14:13, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc
- doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say.
So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
Of course, that's inappropriate and rude. So were you, but we all know that you know better.
From, Emily
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
This is highly inappropriate: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beria&diff=3706794... that is just the last one, I can give you both a pile bigger than the Everest)
And none of you are seing me complain about it. A single mail with irony and you run around claiming misogyny and rudeness? As the meme says: Bitch, pleasehttp://deborahdekrem.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/4f35923e34365_bitch-please.png ! _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:35, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me, Beria, but I agree that your tone is, in fact, highly inappropriate.
From, Emily
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.ptwrote:
Sarah, until i tell you to "fuck off" I'm being respectful to you. Actually the simple meaning of taking time in my volunteer, no paid work as a wikimedian to answer your mail show I respect you.
To your idea: Ever heard of OTRS system? I'm sure with all your "work" for GLAM you already did, so if you have some image you want in commons ask them to release in a compatible license.
HIRE someone to take pictures for us is a very idiotic idea, with the full amount of great photographers who take pictures for free to upload on commons, even more, hire the models as well can almost qualify as the most idiot idea ever.
I do believe in volunteer work Sarah, which is the basis of our wiki way. Try to get something by paying people to do where you simply don't know if can be done by volunteers - since no one ever asked - is, in my humble opinion, stupid. _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:24, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:20 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
Good idea Sarah. Prove everyone in the world we don't even have enough woman in the 9% of editors who can take a picture of some "trivial" thing. Prove the world the only way to have picture of girls in commons is hiring models and photographers to take them.
I have NO idea why no one thought of this before!
Beria, I'd appreciate a more respectful tone. As always, with me, and anyone else on this list. The snarkiness of your comment isn't one to make me want to participate or share my brainstorms or ideas on this list.
Just because you disagree with my idea, doesn't mean others might find value in it, and it might improve content. Not every woman wants to edit Wikipedia and I have met women who are photographers who have expressed interest in uploading photographs and also women who would rather participate as volunteers to be photographed. Using the term model does not necessarily mean traditional "model body types" of women. Anyone can be a model if you put them in front of a camera.
Again, please be a bit more polite in your responses on this list. I know I'm not the only person who would appreciate that. Thank you,
-Sarah
*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 6 May 2012 14:13, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc
- doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say.
So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Can we please focus on the idea and facts instead of (in)appropriate tones ?
I think that trying a professional "Wiki Loves Women" before even trying to do it as a crownfounded, volunteer project is, as least, strange. It makes me sad, as a volunteer photographer, to be "forgotten" or taken for nothing.
I'd like to know what can be done, what has already be tried, what worked and didn't work. If projects like http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sarahdarkmagic/prismatic-art-collection?... has many backers from this list. In one word, to focus on projects and actions.
Caroline
2012/5/6 Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com
Of course, that's inappropriate and rude. So were you, but we all know that you know better.
From, Emily
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.ptwrote:
This is highly inappropriate: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beria&diff=3706794... that is just the last one, I can give you both a pile bigger than the Everest)
And none of you are seing me complain about it. A single mail with irony and you run around claiming misogyny and rudeness? As the meme says: Bitch, pleasehttp://deborahdekrem.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/4f35923e34365_bitch-please.png ! _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:35, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me, Beria, but I agree that your tone is, in fact, highly inappropriate.
From, Emily
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.ptwrote:
Sarah, until i tell you to "fuck off" I'm being respectful to you. Actually the simple meaning of taking time in my volunteer, no paid work as a wikimedian to answer your mail show I respect you.
To your idea: Ever heard of OTRS system? I'm sure with all your "work" for GLAM you already did, so if you have some image you want in commons ask them to release in a compatible license.
HIRE someone to take pictures for us is a very idiotic idea, with the full amount of great photographers who take pictures for free to upload on commons, even more, hire the models as well can almost qualify as the most idiot idea ever.
I do believe in volunteer work Sarah, which is the basis of our wiki way. Try to get something by paying people to do where you simply don't know if can be done by volunteers - since no one ever asked - is, in my humble opinion, stupid. _____ *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 6 May 2012 14:24, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:20 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
Good idea Sarah. Prove everyone in the world we don't even have enough woman in the 9% of editors who can take a picture of some "trivial" thing. Prove the world the only way to have picture of girls in commons is hiring models and photographers to take them.
I have NO idea why no one thought of this before!
Beria, I'd appreciate a more respectful tone. As always, with me, and anyone else on this list. The snarkiness of your comment isn't one to make me want to participate or share my brainstorms or ideas on this list.
Just because you disagree with my idea, doesn't mean others might find value in it, and it might improve content. Not every woman wants to edit Wikipedia and I have met women who are photographers who have expressed interest in uploading photographs and also women who would rather participate as volunteers to be photographed. Using the term model does not necessarily mean traditional "model body types" of women. Anyone can be a model if you put them in front of a camera.
Again, please be a bit more polite in your responses on this list. I know I'm not the only person who would appreciate that. Thank you,
-Sarah
*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 6 May 2012 14:13, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:07 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 5/2/2012 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad
Where are women laughing as they chop up bloody sausage...
To me I guess I see hostility and dominance in the kind of shots people have been complaining about. I don't think women should respond en masse with the same, but if no one responds at all, I feel it is my duty to mention bloody sausages.
Of course, women have responded here, but I guess not enough of a ping in the fabric of world wide male dominance for me to keep my bloody sausages to my self...
Hmmm... maybe I should write some of my favorite artists with suggestions....
Or get rich and commission a bunch of stuff I like... whatever the them...
(Handsome male dogs of various breeds on their backs smiling and saying "Scratch my belly mommy.")
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc
- doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say.
So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow* >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/ <<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
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
On 5/6/12 1:54 PM, Caroline Becker wrote:
Can we please focus on the idea and facts instead of (in)appropriate tones ?
I think that trying a professional "Wiki Loves Women" before even trying to do it as a crownfounded, volunteer project is, as least, strange. It makes me sad, as a volunteer photographer, to be "forgotten" or taken for nothing.
Hi Caroline. I apologize if the idea (which has barely been fleshed out - it was just a bunch of folks tossing ideas around one day and that one came out and hasn't been touched since, even the title isn't anything official, I just was touching on the crowd sourced idea of say WLM) sounded like we'd be paying people to take photographs, that is not what I intended. I think having quality equipment and being able to support people with what they need financially to make these images happen would be great - whether it's purchasing or renting props, renting a studio space, supporting a chapter to acquire a camera or quality film equipment, etc.
I like to think that everyone, like Wiki Loves Monuments, who participates would be volunteers. I am also a volunteer photographer for Commons. I know what type of equipment (whether it's Photoshop or open source applications, decent cameras, film equipment, lighting, etc) that it takes to bring high quality content that is desperately needed for Commons. I think having high quality images taken by participants (whether professional or hobbyist) would make a really impressive impact on article quality! I also think it'd be able to serve as a cool way to encourage professional and hobbyist photographers to participate who might be more interested in taking images of people rather than things (not every photographer likes to take pictures of buildings!). Many photographers have no clue Commons exists, and this could be another interesting way of getting folks involved.
Again, this is nothing that I have solidified or set in stone or even thought about since it was discussed last year. I just think it'd be cool to see something that involves community (and not necessarily relies on WMF grants) within and outside Wikimedia to help fix some of the visual problems we have.
Love that project idea you just shared!
-Sarah
I'd like to know what can be done, what has already be tried, what worked and didn't work. If projects like http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sarahdarkmagic/prismatic-art-collection?... has many backers from this list. In one word, to focus on projects and actions.
Caroline
I like Sarah's idea. Could help a lot. Gillian
On 7 May 2012 04:03, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:54 PM, Caroline Becker wrote:
Can we please focus on the idea and facts instead of (in)appropriate tones ?
I think that trying a professional "Wiki Loves Women" before even trying to do it as a crownfounded, volunteer project is, as least, strange. It makes me sad, as a volunteer photographer, to be "forgotten" or taken for nothing.
Hi Caroline. I apologize if the idea (which has barely been fleshed out - it was just a bunch of folks tossing ideas around one day and that one came out and hasn't been touched since, even the title isn't anything official, I just was touching on the crowd sourced idea of say WLM) sounded like we'd be paying people to take photographs, that is not what I intended. I think having quality equipment and being able to support people with what they need financially to make these images happen would be great - whether it's purchasing or renting props, renting a studio space, supporting a chapter to acquire a camera or quality film equipment, etc.
I like to think that everyone, like Wiki Loves Monuments, who participates would be volunteers. I am also a volunteer photographer for Commons. I know what type of equipment (whether it's Photoshop or open source applications, decent cameras, film equipment, lighting, etc) that it takes to bring high quality content that is desperately needed for Commons. I think having high quality images taken by participants (whether professional or hobbyist) would make a really impressive impact on article quality! I also think it'd be able to serve as a cool way to encourage professional and hobbyist photographers to participate who might be more interested in taking images of people rather than things (not every photographer likes to take pictures of buildings!). Many photographers have no clue Commons exists, and this could be another interesting way of getting folks involved.
Again, this is nothing that I have solidified or set in stone or even thought about since it was discussed last year. I just think it'd be cool to see something that involves community (and not necessarily relies on WMF grants) within and outside Wikimedia to help fix some of the visual problems we have.
Love that project idea you just shared!
-Sarah
I'd like to know what can be done, what has already be tried, what worked and didn't work. If projects like http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sarahdarkmagic/prismatic-art-collection?... has many backers from this list. In one word, to focus on projects and actions.
Caroline
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Wikimedia Australia has a program to assist photographers purchasing equipment if they use Creative Commons licences and properly describe their images.
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal:Camera_equipment_program
Adding 'other photography related expenses' would be good.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/6/12 1:54 PM, Caroline Becker wrote:
Can we please focus on the idea and facts instead of (in)appropriate tones ?
I think that trying a professional "Wiki Loves Women" before even trying to do it as a crownfounded, volunteer project is, as least, strange. It makes me sad, as a volunteer photographer, to be "forgotten" or taken for nothing.
Hi Caroline. I apologize if the idea (which has barely been fleshed out - it was just a bunch of folks tossing ideas around one day and that one came out and hasn't been touched since, even the title isn't anything official, I just was touching on the crowd sourced idea of say WLM) sounded like we'd be paying people to take photographs, that is not what I intended. I think having quality equipment and being able to support people with what they need financially to make these images happen would be great - whether it's purchasing or renting props, renting a studio space, supporting a chapter to acquire a camera or quality film equipment, etc.
I like to think that everyone, like Wiki Loves Monuments, who participates would be volunteers. I am also a volunteer photographer for Commons. I know what type of equipment (whether it's Photoshop or open source applications, decent cameras, film equipment, lighting, etc) that it takes to bring high quality content that is desperately needed for Commons. I think having high quality images taken by participants (whether professional or hobbyist) would make a really impressive impact on article quality! I also think it'd be able to serve as a cool way to encourage professional and hobbyist photographers to participate who might be more interested in taking images of people rather than things (not every photographer likes to take pictures of buildings!). Many photographers have no clue Commons exists, and this could be another interesting way of getting folks involved.
Again, this is nothing that I have solidified or set in stone or even thought about since it was discussed last year. I just think it'd be cool to see something that involves community (and not necessarily relies on WMF grants) within and outside Wikimedia to help fix some of the visual problems we have.
Love that project idea you just shared!
-Sarah
I'd like to know what can be done, what has already be tried, what worked and didn't work. If projects like http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sarahdarkmagic/prismatic-art-collection?... many backers from this list. In one word, to focus on projects and actions.
Caroline
-- Sarah Stierch Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a "Wiki Loves Women" photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various "models" etc and make this legit with releases, etc
- doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say.
So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. "go go boots"), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding "women's stuff" (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing "things" like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons.
Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter.
Commons' coverage of platform shoes or high-heeled shoes for example is appalling, given the thousands of designer shoes out there:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Platform_shoes http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes
Generally, Commons lacks "Pinterest" ...
... meaning that the sort of imagery that is characteristic of a women-dominated site like Pinterest is very underrepresented in Commons.
As the WMF board resolution last year noted, the situation with model releases for pictures taken in private situations is dire in Commons. So many photos of this type are poached from Flickr without bothering to ask the Flickr account holder for model consent. The best way of showing up the present inadequacies would indeed be to do some work where all the t's are crossed, and all the i's dotted: proper copyright release, proper consent forms. It could be a model to be emulated.
Andreas
This is a great idea. We'll see if the bleating that the image is "educational" is quite so strong if it's male-on-male ;-)
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol. >:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if there are any!!
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
As far as I remember the "nake-hub" of commons (As i call it) has no problem at all with homosexuality. Who has the problem is the other side of commons, the "puritans" (several here in that list) who cant see a naked picture - wherever is there is a man, a woman, a hetero sex relation, a gay or lesbian one.
PS.: I just don't do the draw myself because I don't have the skills to do it. _____ *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 29 April 2012 21:19, Michelle Gallaway mgallaway@gmail.com wrote:
This is a great idea. We'll see if the bleating that the image is "educational" is quite so strong if it's male-on-male ;-)
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/27/2012 3:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I could have a go again, Carol. >:)
Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles.
Andreas
So if I was too implicit in my statement. As Andreas surmised, I meant re-do that photo to make it male on male. Or do a second one that's male on male. Go for it!
As for female "ejaculation" since ejaculation is putting out sperm, I don't think women do it.
Women obviously -- geez, I don't what you call it besides "get wet." And maybe orgasms squeeze some of it out an orifice. But I don't think that's ejaculation. But I do now know I don't what the technical terms are or if there are any!!
CM
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
Hi again,
thanx for all your answers. So I come to think about my own attitude towards this topic and yeah: maybe you are right. I should learn to more "think like wikipedia" at this point.
it feels like a disappointment at first. but I try to understand.
(although in my view this is no "illustration", but a comic. but that is just a very small difference.)
Yours Katrin
Frau Lila http://katrin-roenicke.de
Am 27.04.2012 um 21:28 schrieb "Carol Moore DC" <carolmooredc@verizon.netmailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net>:
NO need to censor it. Just do a second one with bushier eyebrows and a goatee and put that up instead :-)
On 4/27/2012 1:50 PM, Béria Lima wrote: 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 articleshttp://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
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I agree with what Beria says here. And I think it's a very important distinction, especially when comparing to Sue's blog post. Sue's post was about the article "pregnancy" -- not an article about pornography.
On a personal level, I happen to agree with you that there's lots of pornographic material on Wikipedia that doesn't really advance its status as an encyclopedia. If I had the luxury of designing Wikipedia myself, it probably wouldn't have an article on "cumshot." But our personal opinions are not really the point.
What you're proposing, to delete such an image, goes pretty strongly against long-standing ideas about what Wikipedia is. I wouldn't suggest taking on an effort to make such a change without a great deal of effort to absorb the related discussions over the years, and thinking carefully about what new ideas you might have to bring to the discussion that hasn't been discussed before.
-Pete
On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
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)? 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.
On 27 April 2012 08:51, Katrin Rönicke katroe@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 Frau Lila - Feministische Initiative Katrin-Roenicke.de Meine Kolumne beim Freitag
Hilfskraft am Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie
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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile