The Online supplement in today's London Guardian features not only a brisk
Jimbo interview, but a use of WP as benchmarl for Uncyclopedia (which
apparenty is funnier, if having less useful factual content).
Charles
The Kate Winslet debacle has been resolved. Please see the talk page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Titanic_%281997_movie%29.
Compromise happened, my wikistress is down, all the names I've been
called in the last 48 hours are forgotten and life is good again.
-Kevin
So, I just now, like a bolt of lightning caught the irony that this
image and the fuss over it is on the "titatic" article. Get it....
<i>tit</i>anic.
HA HA.
-Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-
> bounces(a)Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:40 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet Exposure
>
> Alphax wrote:
>
> > Andy Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't seen it yet and now you've spoiled the ending!
> >
> > It's about the Titanic. It sinks.
> >
> > AFAIK, the movie is not about the Titanic sinking, it's about the
> > aforementioned (hemi-demi-semi)nude Kate Winslet.
>
> Ahhh! I think I'm beginning to understand. It's about the tragedy of
> sinking breasts that comes with aging. :-)
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Stan Shebs wrote:
> It's not so much whether people know how to operate the web
> browser, it's that it makes referring to WP an unduly risky
> activity. For instance, suppose I'm in the office of a
> less-clueful boss, and am trying to get the boss to
> understand a detail, and I know WP has a good explanation;
> it's not going to help my case if I have to ask the boss to
> turn off image display before I have him/her bring up a WP page.
>
> This is another variant on the child-safe debate, and maybe
> the filtering needs to be done by a downstream organization
> (who could make a nice bit of money from a subscription
> service I bet), but if WP gets a reputation as risky to look
> at, and companies feel compelled to forbid its use at work,
> that's going to cut us off from a large population of
> professionals that we would really like to have
> participating, and during the day, not just nights and weekends.
Rampant inclusionism, in the name of "categories are one step down the
slippery slope of pandering to the lowest common denominator", is
pushing Wikipedia to a fork.
One, for creating articles.
Two, for "work-safe" *viewing* of the articles.
Once again, it's the clamor of the "in your face, get used to it"
minority trying to hijack the project. They're insisting that viewers
NOT BE ALLOWED to choose what they get: it's all or nothing. Filtering,
categorization, version-marking, "sifter" - it's all the same to them:
restriction on their "right" to be as offensive as they dare.
Note that no one is saying to include child porn. Somehow the "editorial
decision" to leave out the worst type of exploitative images never gets
slapped down as censorship. But, oh, try to hide a pecker or a teat, and
all hell breaks loose.
Well, I for one am not going to debate this forever. My friend's
proposal was approved, and I'm going to spend the next 2.5 years or so
helping him package Wikipedia articles for a print/DVD edition. And as
editor in chief, he won't be handicapped by endless debates on how sexy
to make the article base. Because his sponsor's boss believes that women
shouldn't even expose their belly buttons! (Don't worry, the anatomy
articles will have a very medical-looking image of a human navel tucked
away somewhere :-)
"Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish!"
Uncle Ed
Tony, I didn't make an "accusation" I made an observation about people like User:1337. You may disagree with my observation. But at this point I'm tired of this whole thing. You haven't listened to a single thing I've said, you just keep arguing. This is not productive, and I'm done with it. Please stop trying to pick a fight with me (If you not trying to pick a fight I sure feel like you are).
-Kevin
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Tony Sidaway
Sent: Wed 4/13/2005 10:22 AM
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture
Kevin Rector said:
> I have ZERO desire to get into a legal debate wherein I have to waste
> my time "gathering evidence" and defending my accusation.
Then I suggest you withdraw your blatantly false accusation.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am reminded of the scene in the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, "The
King and I," when Anna and her young son Louis first arrive in port,
and Anna exclaims at the sign of a man on the pier who is "naked."
"Naked?" asks Louis? "Well, half-naked anyway," says Anna.
For what it's worth, the American Heritage dictionary defines "nude" as
"1. Having no clothing; naked. 2. Permitting or featuring full
exposure of the body: a nude beach," and "seminude" as "Only partially
clothed: posed seminude for a painter; seminude statues."
So, please, let us refer to this as a picture of the _seminude_ Miss
Winslet.
Indeed, given the strategic placement of Jack's sketchpad, one could
make out a case for her condition as being hemi-seminude.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
>Well, gee, Kevin, when you try to equate everybody who
>disagrees with you on this subject with pornographers,
>how else am I supposed to interpret your age level and
>the age level of your interests?
That's just plain dishonest Rick. I was talking about trolls and people who are trying to make a point at the expense of the encyclopedia. I was not talking about breasts per se.
>Showing one breast is pornography?
I never --ever-- said that it was. Stop putting words into my mouth.
>Not a very mature outlook on the
>world at large, on art, or on the history
>of illustration, is it?
Again you imply that I'm immature, and all based on falseness and lies. Sad.
So to answer your question, "how else am I supposed to interpret your age level and the age level of your interests?" You should assume good faith. You should assume that I am not talking about "everybody" who disagrees with me (I generally don't hardly say anything about "everybody"). You should also have read the words I wrote and understood that I was not calling "anyone" a "pornographer".
Your behavior in this whole episode towards me has been pretty well reprehensible and rude, and as far as I can tell it's only because you disagree with me.
I'm done with it, you clearly are not a person who can engage in constructive or fruitful dialog with me on this topic.
-Kevin
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture
> --- Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> Some of you may
>> be surprised, but most of you will sympathize with
>> the idea that I find
>> the mere subject line of the current thread to be
>> embarrassing and
>> discouraging to my participation.
>
> So am I. Embarrassed that any adult human being feels
> that one bare breast is somehow nudity.
Miss Winslet's character, Rose, does, after all say something to the
effect that posing for Jack was the most erotic thing she had ever
done.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
--- Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
> Not to mention the fact that anyone who simply
> explains that, for
> whatever reason, he is made uncomfortable or
> inconvenienced by such
> pictures or discussions is personally attacked and
> ridiculed for being
> at best a childish person who should be spending his
> time at
> Yahooligans, probably an advocate of oppressive
> censorship, and at
> worst a psychotic.
I never said psychotic. I never implied psychotic.
You are making a straw man argument. However, I fail
to see how suggesting that people who want to
bowdlerize Wikipedia would be more comfortable at
yahooligans, is any more of a personal attack than the
suggestion that those of who don't feel that any real
encyclopedia should be censored are somehow
pornographers.
> Those personal attacks, especially those from
> privileged characters
> who are absolved from censure, have a strong
> chilling effect on the
> conversation.
And who would that be?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Some of you may
> be surprised, but most of you will sympathize with
> the idea that I find
> the mere subject line of the current thread to be
> embarrassing and
> discouraging to my participation.
So am I. Embarrassed that any adult human being feels
that one bare breast is somehow nudity.
RickK
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com