http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance our mission?
Steve
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance our mission?
Could you please go more into specific:
Image:Jenna Jameson Dirty Bob.jpg does not really seem to be placed properly in that category, it think this is merely posing for the photographer
On the other hand, what would in your point of view be an appropriate category for this picture Image:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg ?
Most of the images in that category would not qualify as porn, in my opinion, some of them could qualify as nudity.
How would you illustrate the article on masturbation instead?
Mathias
On 21/02/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance our mission?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, humans know about porn, right? So, of course it is part of our knowledge, even if some people find it objectionable
On 21/02/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance our mission?
Err wrong mailing list. For the most part the person to blame is Peter Klashorst. Commons's collection of such images was a lot smaller before someone found his stuff.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 21/02/2008, Steve Bennett wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance our mission?
Steve
What? Why are "porn" (or, more generally, any media containing sexual content) and "human knowledge" mutually exclusive? Forgetting the issues about this being the en.wikipedia list and the differing missions of these projects, what-on-Earth makes you think that images of masturbation couldn't be informative or encyclopaedic?
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
That sexual "deviancy" occupies such a large part of our work testifies to the mentality of college students with time on their hands.
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
That sexual "deviancy" occupies such a large part of our work testifies to the mentality of college students with time on their hands.
Or, it may simply testify to the importance of sex to humanity. We may not like to talk about it, but it is a major part of life.
Sexual *deviancy* is a major part of life?
We have extensive articles on sexual fetishes of all sorts, but the article on "wedding" is so bad that I'm preparing to largely start over from scratch. Well, maybe that means that cohabitation and sleeping around are winning.....
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
That sexual "deviancy" occupies such a large part of our work testifies to the mentality of college students with time on their hands.
Or, it may simply testify to the importance of sex to humanity. We may not like to talk about it, but it is a major part of life.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Sexual *deviancy* is a major part of life?
You put the word in quotes, so I wasn't quite sure what you meant by it, so I pretty much ignored it. The main topic mentioned in this thread is female masturbation, if you consider that "deviant", then yes, sexual deviancy is a major part of life.
On 21/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Sexual *deviancy* is a major part of life?
We have extensive articles on sexual fetishes of all sorts, but the article on "wedding" is so bad that I'm preparing to largely start over from scratch. Well, maybe that means that cohabitation and sleeping around are winning.....
Fetishes tend to be rather narrow topics. By comparison wedding suffers the usual problems of being a meta article.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Sexual *deviancy* is a major part of life?
if you mean female masturbation, then yes. Never met a girl who didn't. Nor a male. Perfectly appropriate topic for free content collections such as this.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
That sexual "deviancy" occupies such a large part of our work testifies to the mentality of college students with time on their hands.
Actually, I find our coverage of sexuality to be rather poor, but anyway ...
-Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 21/02/2008, Matthew Brown wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM, The Mangoe wrote:
That sexual "deviancy" occupies such a large part of our work testifies to the mentality of college students with time on their hands.
Actually, I find our coverage of sexuality to be rather poor, but anyway ...
Though our NPOV policy is surprisingly effective, it falls down a little when it comes to sex and sexuality-related articles. Images featuring sex or nudity aren't always treated in the same way as images with no sexual or nude content, despite having equal relevance to their respective articles. When it comes to sex-related articles and media on Wikipedia, cultural and societal attitudes have too much influence.
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Though our NPOV policy is surprisingly effective, it falls down a little when it comes to sex and sexuality-related articles. Images featuring sex or nudity aren't always treated in the same way as images with no sexual or nude content, despite having equal relevance to their respective articles. When it comes to sex-related articles and media on Wikipedia, cultural and societal attitudes have too much influence.
Really? I haven't noticed any serious problems. NPOV isn't a definite line in the sand, there's a fair bit of leeway. We err on the side of caution when it comes to sexual images, the same as we err on the side of caution with BLPs, but I think we're still within the range of NPOV.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance our mission?
I'm sorry, but what sets this category apart from any other, say for instance [[Category:Dogs in clothing]] (at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dogs_in_clothing ). Commons is simply a collection of free media representing different aspects of human life. And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
In addition, three of the images are fine works of art (the Klimt one is spectacular and the Japanese one is mezmerizing) and another one is fascinating illustration, a true picture of its time.
Frankly, I find your position prudish and counter-productive with respect for what we are trying to achieve. We shouldn't censor based on morality.
--Oskar
Well, yeah. You have just proven anything anyone wants to say about Wikipedia's upper-middle Euro-American libertine bias.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
On 2/22/08, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but what sets this category apart from any other, say for instance [[Category:Dogs in clothing]] (at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dogs_in_clothing ). Commons
Here are some things: - It's NSFW. I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work, thinking it couldn't possibly be... - It's not safe for kids. Apparently some libraries already ban wikipedia. Making institutions unwilling to use our resource is not helping spread knowledge. - I would happily reorganise a "dogs in clothing" category while my girlfirend was watching. - It's bad for our reputation to be known as a source of pornography. It's not bad for our reputation to be known as a source of dogs in clothing photos.
is simply a collection of free media representing different aspects of human life. And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
Yes, you are introducing a moral argument which is probably best kept out. There's obviously nothing wrong having photos of "shameful" topics (think of political events, massacres etc).
In addition, three of the images are fine works of art (the Klimt one is spectacular and the Japanese one is mezmerizing) and another one is fascinating illustration, a true picture of its time.
I think the illustrations - particularly historical - are ok. They probably pass the tests listed above.
Frankly, I find your position prudish and counter-productive with respect for what we are trying to achieve. We shouldn't censor based on morality.
Heh, it's not often I get called prudish. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "censoring based on morality", because I don't think I'm proposing censoring, and I'm not bringing morality into anything. I'm suggesting that storing and making available porn is not good for our mission.
Steve
Um, yeah. Just this morning I was trying to fix up something involving insect mouth parts, and in clicking on "Labium", I was treated to a full color photo of female genitalia, up close and personal. There are a lot of booby-trapped links like that; one wonders how many ordinarily innocent phrases lead to similar surprises because the sexual fetish community-- and therefore Wikipedia-- has co-opted the phrase.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/08, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but what sets this category apart from any other, say for instance [[Category:Dogs in clothing]] (at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dogs_in_clothing ). Commons
Here are some things:
- It's NSFW. I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work,
thinking it couldn't possibly be...
- It's not safe for kids. Apparently some libraries already ban
wikipedia. Making institutions unwilling to use our resource is not helping spread knowledge.
- I would happily reorganise a "dogs in clothing" category while my
girlfirend was watching.
- It's bad for our reputation to be known as a source of pornography.
It's not bad for our reputation to be known as a source of dogs in clothing photos.
is simply a collection of free media representing different aspects of human life. And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
Yes, you are introducing a moral argument which is probably best kept out. There's obviously nothing wrong having photos of "shameful" topics (think of political events, massacres etc).
In addition, three of the images are fine works of art (the Klimt one is spectacular and the Japanese one is mezmerizing) and another one is fascinating illustration, a true picture of its time.
I think the illustrations - particularly historical - are ok. They probably pass the tests listed above.
Frankly, I find your position prudish and counter-productive with respect for what we are trying to achieve. We shouldn't censor based on morality.
Heh, it's not often I get called prudish. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "censoring based on morality", because I don't think I'm proposing censoring, and I'm not bringing morality into anything. I'm suggesting that storing and making available porn is not good for our mission.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think if anything the anti-sexual fetish people have dominated the project. Many articles on this range of subjects have been deleted or stripped of content. All articles on sexual acts are illustrated by drawings not photographs, even when good free photographs are available. But at least anatomy is anatomy, insect or human.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Um, yeah. Just this morning I was trying to fix up something involving insect mouth parts, and in clicking on "Labium", I was treated to a full color photo of female genitalia, up close and personal. There are a lot of booby-trapped links like that; one wonders how many ordinarily innocent phrases lead to similar surprises because the sexual fetish community-- and therefore Wikipedia-- has co-opted the phrase.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/08, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but what sets this category apart from any other, say for instance [[Category:Dogs in clothing]] (at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dogs_in_clothing ). Commons
Here are some things:
- It's NSFW. I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work,
thinking it couldn't possibly be...
- It's not safe for kids. Apparently some libraries already ban
wikipedia. Making institutions unwilling to use our resource is not helping spread knowledge.
- I would happily reorganise a "dogs in clothing" category while my
girlfirend was watching.
- It's bad for our reputation to be known as a source of pornography.
It's not bad for our reputation to be known as a source of dogs in clothing photos.
is simply a collection of free media representing different aspects of human life. And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
Yes, you are introducing a moral argument which is probably best kept out. There's obviously nothing wrong having photos of "shameful" topics (think of political events, massacres etc).
In addition, three of the images are fine works of art (the Klimt one is spectacular and the Japanese one is mezmerizing) and another one is fascinating illustration, a true picture of its time.
I think the illustrations - particularly historical - are ok. They probably pass the tests listed above.
Frankly, I find your position prudish and counter-productive with respect for what we are trying to achieve. We shouldn't censor based on morality.
Heh, it's not often I get called prudish. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "censoring based on morality", because I don't think I'm proposing censoring, and I'm not bringing morality into anything. I'm suggesting that storing and making available porn is not good for our mission.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I think if anything the anti-sexual fetish people have dominated the project.
[snip]
I wouldn't be so sure about that...
Look carefully at the feet of the woman in this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bikini_Model_Jassi_3.jpg
Seems we are so deplete in normal bikini pics, but so awash in bondage pics that we've created illustrations for the bikini article by cloning out the bondage gear.
0_o
Sometimes I think the tagline should be...
WikiMedia: The only collection of educational resources with more dicks than ducks. (tm)
Though, clearly fetish interests are popular... so they should be well covered... but to claim that they are oppressed? eh...
On 2/26/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Look carefully at the feet of the woman in this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bikini_Model_Jassi_3.jpg
Heh, that's hilarious.
Ok, here's my next question: since apparently collecting and providing porn is part of our mission, how much porn do we want? How many pictures should we have in commons category "Male masturbation"? We have 17 images at present. Would another 1000 photos be an improvement? 10,000? 1,000,000?
Steve
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Look carefully at the feet of the woman in this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bikini_Model_Jassi_3.jpg
Seems we are so deplete in normal bikini pics, but so awash in bondage pics that we've created illustrations for the bikini article by cloning out the bondage gear.
Heh! I say we keep it and consider it an easter egg. Award a Slylock Fox Deputy Detective Barnstar to any editor who notices it. :)
On 2/25/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the tagline should be...
WikiMedia: The only collection of educational resources with more dicks than ducks. (tm)
Sounds like I should upload my collection of photographs from the local park. There's quite a variety of half-breed mallards there.
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 2/25/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
WikiMedia: The only collection of educational resources with more dicks than ducks. (tm)
Sounds like I should upload my collection of photographs from the local park. There's quite a variety of half-breed mallards there.
Kinky, if you're into that sort of thing.
On 26/02/2008, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/25/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the tagline should be...
WikiMedia: The only collection of educational resources with more dicks than ducks. (tm)
Sounds like I should upload my collection of photographs from the local park. There's quite a variety of half-breed mallards there.
Come on! Female masturbation is one thing, but mallards? Be reasonable!
On 26/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/25/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the tagline should be... WikiMedia: The only collection of educational resources with more dicks than ducks. (tm)
Sounds like I should upload my collection of photographs from the local park. There's quite a variety of half-breed mallards there.
Come on! Female masturbation is one thing, but mallards? Be reasonable!
http://www.nmr.nl/nmr/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=16&itemid=2574&... (PDF)
- d.
On 26/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/25/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the tagline should be... WikiMedia: The only collection of educational resources with more dicks than ducks. (tm)
Sounds like I should upload my collection of photographs from the local park. There's quite a variety of half-breed mallards there.
Come on! Female masturbation is one thing, but mallards? Be reasonable!
http://www.nmr.nl/nmr/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=16&itemid=2574&... (PDF)
You just can't make this stuff up!
(I have a feeling this thread is getting rather off-topic...)
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 26/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/25/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I think the tagline should be... WikiMedia: The only collection of educational resources with more dicks than ducks. (tm)
Sounds like I should upload my collection of photographs from the local park. There's quite a variety of half-breed mallards there.
Come on! Female masturbation is one thing, but mallards? Be reasonable!
http://www.nmr.nl/nmr/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=16&itemid=2574&... (PDF)
You just can't make this stuff up!
It's a research paper that merits consideration for the Ignobels.
Ec
On 28/02/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's a research paper that merits consideration for the Ignobels.
It won one in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_necrophilia_in_the_mallard_duck#Necr...
- d.
The Mangoe wrote:
Um, yeah. Just this morning I was trying to fix up something involving insect mouth parts, and in clicking on "Labium", I was treated to a full color photo of female genitalia, up close and personal. There are a lot of booby-trapped links like that; one wonders how many ordinarily innocent phrases lead to similar surprises because the sexual fetish community-- and therefore Wikipedia-- has co-opted the phrase.
The specific example could easily be fixed by making [[Labium]] the disambiguation page, and moving the current content to something like [[Labium (genitalia)]]. The explicit title would avoid surprises When did the word "labium" become anything other than an innocent scientific term. Referring to the entire Wikipedia community as sexual fetishists just because of your personal dislike of explicit photographs is unnecessarily inflammatory.
Ec
On 22/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The specific example could easily be fixed by making [[Labium]] the disambiguation page, and moving the current content to something like [[Labium (genitalia)]].
I would support that. Principle of least surprise, and all that.
I've moved the page. Could people please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Labium and fix the links so they point to [[Labium (genitalia)]] rather than the disambig.
- d.
On 22/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've moved the page. Could people please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Labium and fix the links so they point to [[Labium (genitalia)]] rather than the disambig.
And someone has to write [[Labium (insect)]]!
- d.
It actually will link (at the moment) to a subsection of [[Insect mouth parts]]. The surprised I-only-play-an-entomologist-on-Wikipedia thanks you. (Actually, I was playing a botanist at the time. Long story...)
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:05 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've moved the page. Could people please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Labium and fix the links so they point to [[Labium (genitalia)]] rather than the disambig.
And someone has to write [[Labium (insect)]]!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/22/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've moved the page. Could people please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Labium and fix the links so they point to [[Labium (genitalia)]] rather than the disambig.
Um, no.
Steve
On 24/02/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've moved the page. Could people please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Labium and fix the links so they point to [[Labium (genitalia)]] rather than the disambig.
Um, no.
I've done 'em all anyway ;-) We hope for less disconcerted entomologists in future ...
- d.
Of course it could be fixed, assuming some bloody-minded type doesn't fight it. The point is that the preference for graphic images makes this kind of surprise happen readily.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The Mangoe wrote:
Um, yeah. Just this morning I was trying to fix up something involving insect mouth parts, and in clicking on "Labium", I was treated to a full color photo of female genitalia, up close and personal. There are a lot of booby-trapped links like that; one wonders how many ordinarily innocent phrases lead to similar surprises because the sexual fetish community-- and therefore Wikipedia-- has co-opted the phrase.
The specific example could easily be fixed by making [[Labium]] the disambiguation page, and moving the current content to something like [[Labium (genitalia)]]. The explicit title would avoid surprises When did the word "labium" become anything other than an innocent scientific term. Referring to the entire Wikipedia community as sexual fetishists just because of your personal dislike of explicit photographs is unnecessarily inflammatory.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/02/2008, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Um, yeah. Just this morning I was trying to fix up something involving insect mouth parts, and in clicking on "Labium", I was treated to a full color photo of female genitalia, up close and personal. There are a lot of booby-trapped links like that; one wonders how many ordinarily innocent phrases lead to similar surprises because the sexual fetish community-- and therefore Wikipedia-- has co-opted the phrase.
I think describing human anatomy as part of a sexual fetish is perhaps going a little too far!
(This does pose an interesting question about disambiguation and primary use of names, and perhaps suggest we ought to do a little discreet reshuffling of articles, but otherwise...)
On 22/02/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work,
thinking it couldn't possibly be...
What on earth else could it conceivably be? A picture of a dog wearing clothes? ;)
Seriously though, just like you'd expect a picture of someone masturbating on the [[Masturbation]] article, you should definitely expect pictures of *several* people masturbating in the Commons category. There are no surprises. Unless someone put Tubgirl in the sitenotice again.
I'd support a content filter like Flickr has, but I know people will yell about censorship. However, the number of complaints that come through on OTRS about this sort of thing should make us realise that it's a bit of a problem.
On 2/22/08, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously though, just like you'd expect a picture of someone masturbating on the [[Masturbation]] article, you should definitely expect pictures of *several* people masturbating in the Commons category. There are no surprises. Unless someone put Tubgirl in the sitenotice again.
Why? I wouldn't expect a picture of someone masturbating if I looked it up in some other encyclopaedia, say Britannica. A drawing, perhaps. Enough to convey the idea. Full graphic gorey detail? No thanks.
I'd support a content filter like Flickr has, but I know people will yell about censorship. However, the number of complaints that come through on OTRS about this sort of thing should make us realise that it's a bit of a problem.
God only knows how a content filter is construed as censorship.
Steve
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'd support a content filter like Flickr has, but I know people will yell about censorship. However, the number of complaints that come through on OTRS about this sort of thing should make us realise that it's a bit of a problem.
God only knows how a content filter is construed as censorship.
You mean, Muhammad knows.
Sorry.
On 2/22/08, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
God only knows how a content filter is construed as censorship.
You mean, Muhammad knows.
Actually the next question is "why is the word 'censorship' even used in discussions of Wikipedia?" Censorship is when a third party prevents you from communicating in some way: a military censor blocking letters to your family, for instance. If *we* choose what *we* publish, that's not censorship: it's editorial discretion.
Steve
On 2/21/08, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- It's bad for our reputation to be known as a source of pornography.
It's not bad for our reputation to be known as a source of dogs in clothing photos.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that having sex (or masturbating) is less deviant than dressing one's dog in a fucking T-shirt. Your mileage may vary.
—C.W.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation
What is the thinking here? When did we decide that providing access to the sum total of human knowledge included porn? How does this enhance our mission?
Steve
Why is this discussion so long? We provide porn so people can learn about sex & the like. We provide images of women masterbating so people can learn about ... women masterbating. Doesn't seem like there's really tons to discuss.
Cheers WilyD
On 2/27/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Why is this discussion so long? We provide porn so people can learn about sex & the like. We provide images of women masterbating so people can learn about ... women masterbating. Doesn't seem like there's really tons to discuss.
Here's something to discuss: a) Do you think an amateur photo is necessary to explain the concept of "woman masturbating"? b) How many images do you think is enough? c) Are there any limits to how far your logic should be applied? Should we provide graphic images of felching, squicking, or for that matter, decapitating?
Steve
On 27/02/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Why is this discussion so long? We provide porn so people can learn about sex & the like. We provide images of women masterbating so people can learn about ... women masterbating. Doesn't seem like there's really tons to discuss.
Here's something to discuss: a) Do you think an amateur photo is necessary to explain the concept of "woman masturbating"?
Most of our pics come from a professional artist.
b) How many images do you think is enough? c) Are there any limits to how far your logic should be applied?
Should we provide graphic images of felching, squicking, or for that matter, decapitating?
The last one might be a useful for illustrating butchering practices. Hens for example.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Why is this discussion so long? We provide porn so people can learn about sex & the like. We provide images of women masterbating so people can learn about ... women masterbating. Doesn't seem like there's really tons to discuss.
Here's something to discuss: a) Do you think an amateur photo is necessary to explain the concept of "woman masturbating"? b) How many images do you think is enough? c) Are there any limits to how far your logic should be applied? Should we provide graphic images of felching, squicking, or for that matter, decapitating?
Steve
a)Err, obviously professional is preferable to amatuer. But uh ... back when I was a ten year old boy, such material was highly instructive, and fairly difficult to obtain. It's very easy to say "Oh, you don't need a picture to explain it" when you already understand it, but very basic educational research shows you explain things better and people retain more with instructive diagrams, photos, videos and the like. But, quite frankly, to explain the subject to someone with no experience with it whatsoever, yes, photographs are helpful. b)Err, depends on a variety of factors - in all honesty, I'm not sure a specific number is really called for. Commons has no reason to delete media unless it's repetitive or useless. A Wikipedia article obvious has some called for quantity, but I'm not sure how many - I doubt more than a couple (note that in Canadian English, this could mean 3 or 4) - depends on the length and depth of the article - obviously as it gets better, the more that are called for. Of course, such images would almost certainly be freely licensed (seems unlikely any appropriate fair use ones would exist) and such images should be on commons, which also supports other projects - a textbook at Wikiversity on human sexual practices might easily call for a dozen such images. c) I'm sure there are actually images of decapitating around, and I'll be they're instructive too. Seeing a decapitated body is different from hearing about it. We have photos of bodies hanged at lynchings, and they sure convey to me a lot I didn't get from the text, lynchings being so far removed from my experiences. Beyond this - there probably are limits, but where exactly they lie I'm not sure - where the "disruptive anti-value" of such images exceeds their educational value. While this is clearly not the case for a woman masterbating, I'm not sure exactly where it is.
Cheers WilyD
On 2/27/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
a)Err, obviously professional is preferable to amatuer.
Err, obviously we would use the best work that is available a free license. If it looks "amateur", then so be it.
But, quite frankly, to explain the subject to someone with no experience with it whatsoever, yes, photographs are helpful.
I agree, and will add that in general, most articles make the mistake of assuming too much background knowledge on the reader's part.
b)Err, depends on a variety of factors - in all honesty, I'm not sure a specific number is really called for. Commons has no reason to delete media unless it's repetitive or useless.
Or "not free", but yes there is no basis for an upper limit on unique free images, regardless of what they depict.
A Wikipedia article obvious has some called for quantity, but I'm not sure how many - I doubt more than a couple (note that in Canadian English, this could mean 3 or 4)
Damn kinky Canadians. o.O
—C.W.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Here's something to discuss: a) Do you think an amateur photo is necessary to explain the concept of "woman masturbating"?
If it's a free photo and a good photo, who cares if it's shot by an amateur or professional.
You know, I once heard of this Internet Encyclopedia, where they let just *anyone* write stuff in it! It's so weird, you don't have to be like a professor or anything!
(ok, so that was a pretty lame attempt at sarcasm, but you get my point. 90% of wikipedia is written by amateurs)
b) How many images do you think is enough?
Commons doesn't work that way. It's simply a collection of free media. Should we complain that we have too much free media?
c) Are there any limits to how far your logic should be applied? Should we provide graphic images of felching, squicking, or for that matter, decapitating?
Ok, I made this point before, but perhaps it didn't register: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with female masturbation, and to suggest that putting up photos of female masturbation is comparable to putting up images of someone being brutally murdered is something that I find very offensive.
There are a lot of people who are ashamed of their sexuality, and there are a lot of girls (and boys for that matter) who have been taught that it is "dirty" to give yourself pleasure and their lives have been so much poorer for it. If we are able to teach the message that a vagina is not something dirty or shameful, that masturbation in healthy and pleasurable, and that safe, consensual sex is something that should be applauded, then we have done a lot of good. Being prudish and self-censoring is supremely damaging to what we are trying to accomplish.
--Oskar
PS. And it's not like we shy away from putting up pictures that deal with executions, if they are relevant. Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gunpowderhdq2.png
or for that matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_execution.jpg
You can probably guess from the URL what that second one depicts.
On 01/03/2008, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
b) How many images do you think is enough?
Commons doesn't work that way. It's simply a collection of free media. Should we complain that we have too much free media?
False Commons has deleted random penis pic submissions for quite some time.
c) Are there any limits to how far your logic should be applied? Should we provide graphic images of felching, squicking, or for that matter, decapitating?
Ok, I made this point before, but perhaps it didn't register: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with female masturbation, and to suggest that putting up photos of female masturbation is comparable to putting up images of someone being brutally murdered is something that I find very offensive.
There are a lot of people who are ashamed of their sexuality, and there are a lot of girls (and boys for that matter) who have been taught that it is "dirty" to give yourself pleasure and their lives have been so much poorer for it. If we are able to teach the message that a vagina is not something dirty or shameful, that masturbation in healthy and pleasurable, and that safe, consensual sex is something that should be applauded, then we have done a lot of good. Being prudish and self-censoring is supremely damaging to what we are trying to accomplish.
Commons does not exist to push your POV on sexuality.
PS. And it's not like we shy away from putting up pictures that deal with executions, if they are relevant. Look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gunpowderhdq2.png
or for that matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_execution.jpg
You can probably guess from the URL what that second one depicts.
Neither actually show decapitation. Problem is that decapitation isn't something normally done during dissection so it won't show up there and Category:Butchers isn't that complete yet.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I made this point before, but perhaps it didn't register: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with female masturbation, and to suggest that putting up photos of female masturbation is comparable to putting up images of someone being brutally murdered is something that I find very offensive.
Commons does not exist to push your POV on sexuality.
Oh. So saying that there is nothing wrong with masturbation, that it is completely natural, is a POV?
Well, I guess it is, at that. And so is the idea of democracy, of freedom of speech, of "no racial discrimination".
Michel
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Commons does not exist to push your POV on sexuality.
Oh. So saying that there is nothing wrong with masturbation, that it is completely natural, is a POV?
Well, I guess it is, at that. And so is the idea of democracy, of freedom of speech, of "no racial discrimination".
Teaching there should not be racial discrimination" is a POV and we avoid this too.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
False Commons has deleted random penis pic submissions for quite some time.
There is a difference between vandalism and honestly contributing media.
Commons does not exist to push your POV on sexuality.
I didn't say it did, my comment was mostly directed at the fact that Steve compared female masturbation with decapitation, something I found patently offensive.
We point is, we shouldn't censor either Commons or Wikipedia based on arbitrarily chosen moral guidelines. The goal of Wikipedia, especially, should be to give people the truth, to cut through all the moral crap that we inherit from culture and just give people the information. It's absurd for such a project to say "We should delete all the pictures of women touching their cooches, because masturbation is dirty and sinful!".
Neither actually show decapitation. Problem is that decapitation isn't something normally done during dissection so it won't show up there and Category:Butchers isn't that complete yet.
They show people being executed, which was the point. If you want pictures of actual decapitations, look no further than the articles on the Guillotine and the French Revolution.
On 01/03/2008, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
False Commons has deleted random penis pic submissions for quite some time.
There is a difference between vandalism and honestly contributing media.
How do you tell?
Commons does not exist to push your POV on sexuality.
I didn't say it did, my comment was mostly directed at the fact that Steve compared female masturbation with decapitation, something I found patently offensive.
Why? Both are natural and both have been aproved and opposed by various societies throughout history.
We point is, we shouldn't censor either Commons or Wikipedia based on arbitrarily chosen moral guidelines. The goal of Wikipedia, especially, should be to give people the truth,
Ah the truth<sup>tm</sup>. But Quid est veritas? (and no Est vir qui adest is not a useful answer in this context).
Let just say your claim is disputed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/truth
to cut through all the moral crap that we inherit from culture and just give people the information.
Morality is crap? Well that is certainly a POV although one I doubt you hold going by some of your early comments. By rejecting the comparison between masturbation with decapitation you in turn reject the endpoint of moral relativism and thus your position becomes internally inconsistent.
It's absurd for such a project to say "We should delete all the pictures of women touching their cooches, because masturbation is dirty and sinful!".
No more absurd than saying that we should keep them because it allows commons to tech some message that you want to transmit.
Neither actually show decapitation. Problem is that decapitation isn't something normally done during dissection so it won't show up there and Category:Butchers isn't that complete yet.
They show people being executed, which was the point. If you want pictures of actual decapitations, look no further than the articles on the Guillotine and the French Revolution.
Strangely no. Most artists show just before hand and the photos don't even show the person on the guillotine.
The bible inspired Image:Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio.jpg Would appear to be the first actual decapitation pic that comes to hand and Image:Beheadingchina2.jpg the closest we have to a photo.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:45 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say it did, my comment was mostly directed at the fact that Steve compared female masturbation with decapitation, something I found patently offensive.
Why? Both are natural and both have been aproved and opposed by various societies throughout history.
I'm sorry, but you don't find the comparison offensive? You do think murder and masturbation are comparable offenses?
We point is, we shouldn't censor either Commons or Wikipedia based on arbitrarily chosen moral guidelines. The goal of Wikipedia, especially, should be to give people the truth,
Ah the truth<sup>tm</sup>. But Quid est veritas? (and no Est vir qui adest is not a useful answer in this context).
Let just say your claim is disputed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/truth
You're lawyering, and doing it badly. Of course our goal should be to tell the truth, but we can't do that without verifiability, but that doesn't mean that knowledge and truth shouldn't be our goal.
Also, I believe my claim was that masturbation was both healthy and pleasurable, both of are ridiculously verifiable (indeed, we have an article about it with loads of sources), so this is the wrong place to start debating the whole philosophical debate over verifiability versus truth. In this case, both of them are on my side.
to cut through all the moral crap that we inherit from culture and just give people the information.
Morality is crap? Well that is certainly a POV although one I doubt you hold going by some of your early comments. By rejecting the comparison between masturbation with decapitation you in turn reject the endpoint of moral relativism and thus your position becomes internally inconsistent.
You're so missing my point with these irrelevant little philosophical asides. First of all, I didn't say "morality is crap", I said that some moral lessons that people are being taught are crap, and they are, anyone can agree with that. Things like "Don't eat shellfish, or you will be stoned", "Don't make pictures of people", or indeed "Women are by nature sinful creatures, and if they find pleasures with their own bodies they will go to hell!"
You're trying to make it sound like I want Wikipedia to get rid of old-school Judeo-Christian morality and substitute it with my own sexually deviant one, but that's not what I said. I said that wikipedia shouldn't ascribe to any moral system what so ever, it should just try and present the truth (or verifiable facts, if you're going to continue to complain about that point)
It's absurd for such a project to say "We should delete all the pictures of women touching their cooches, because masturbation is dirty and sinful!".
No more absurd than saying that we should keep them because it allows commons to tech some message that you want to transmit.
I'm not saying we should keep them to teach my message of sexual revolution! I'm saying that the reasons people want to delete them are entirely based on arbitrarily chosen moral standards. Like I posted long, long ago, why should this category be treated any different than Category:Dogs in clothing? Can you tell me a single good reason?
Neither actually show decapitation. Problem is that decapitation isn't something normally done during dissection so it won't show up there and Category:Butchers isn't that complete yet.
They show people being executed, which was the point. If you want pictures of actual decapitations, look no further than the articles on the Guillotine and the French Revolution.
Strangely no. Most artists show just before hand and the photos don't even show the person on the guillotine.
The bible inspired Image:Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio.jpg Would appear to be the first actual decapitation pic that comes to hand and Image:Beheadingchina2.jpg the closest we have to a photo.
Eh, whatever, not really the central focus of this discussion, is it :)
--Oskar
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I said that wikipedia shouldn't ascribe to any moral system what so ever, it should just try and present the truth (or verifiable facts, if you're going to continue to complain about that point)
This seems to contradict your earlier message:
If we are able to teach the message that a vagina is not something dirty or shameful, that masturbation in healthy and pleasurable, and that safe, consensual sex is something that should be applauded, then we have done a lot of good.
Sure sounds like you wanted to teach a moral system there.
On 01/03/2008, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:45 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say it did, my comment was mostly directed at the fact that Steve compared female masturbation with decapitation, something I found patently offensive.
Why? Both are natural and both have been aproved and opposed by various societies throughout history.
I'm sorry, but you don't find the comparison offensive? You do think murder and masturbation are comparable offenses?
Murder is unlawful killing. Decapitation can be lawful under many situations.
You're lawyering, and doing it badly. Of course our goal should be to tell the truth, but we can't do that without verifiability, but that doesn't mean that knowledge and truth shouldn't be our goal.
Also, I believe my claim was that masturbation was both healthy and pleasurable, both of are ridiculously verifiable (indeed, we have an article about it with loads of sources), so this is the wrong place to start debating the whole philosophical debate over verifiability versus truth. In this case, both of them are on my side.
Not remotely. Sources exist that state it is unhealthy. then of course we have the annoying arguments about the definition of health. You might think it means absence of illness. I might think that is a reasonable definition but apparently certain groups think otherwise.
You're so missing my point with these irrelevant little philosophical asides. First of all, I didn't say "morality is crap", I said that some moral lessons that people are being taught are crap, and they are, anyone can agree with that. Things like "Don't eat shellfish, or you will be stoned", "Don't make pictures of people", or indeed "Women are by nature sinful creatures, and if they find pleasures with their own bodies they will go to hell!"
"anyone can agree with that". Quite a number of people would agree that those are morally reasonable positions.
You're trying to make it sound like I want Wikipedia to get rid of old-school Judeo-Christian morality and substitute it with my own sexually deviant one,
I didn't say your position was sexually deviant. Your "If we are able to teach the message..." statement however made it clear you want to push a POV.
but that's not what I said. I said that wikipedia shouldn't ascribe to any moral system what so ever, it should just try and present the truth (or verifiable facts, if you're going to continue to complain about that point)
You've just contradicted yourself again.
I'm not saying we should keep them to teach my message of sexual revolution! I'm saying that the reasons people want to delete them are entirely based on arbitrarily chosen moral standards.
As are the reasons you presented to keep them "If we are able to teach the message..."
Like I posted long, long ago, why should this category be treated any different than Category:Dogs in clothing? Can you tell me a single good reason?
Dogs don't have personality rights and while it isn't generally possible to copyright clothing under US law I'm not sure that is totally universal. A dog in a Darth Vader mask could be a problem I'm not sure. Well you did ask.
On 3/2/08, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say it did, my comment was mostly directed at the fact that Steve compared female masturbation with decapitation, something I found patently offensive.
I said publishing photos of the two is similar, in that both are likely to cause offense, something I find blatantly obvious.
We point is, we shouldn't censor either Commons or Wikipedia based on arbitrarily chosen moral guidelines. The goal of Wikipedia,
I'm not talking about "moral guidelines", I'm talking about what is offensive, what is harming our credibility, and what is not furthering our mission.
Steve
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
If we are able to teach the message that a vagina is not something dirty or shameful, that masturbation in healthy and pleasurable, and that safe, consensual sex is something that should be applauded, then we have done a lot of good.
We can't teach this. It's a POV. NPOV, remember?
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
If we are able to teach the message that a vagina is not something dirty or shameful, that masturbation in healthy and pleasurable, and that safe, consensual sex is something that should be applauded, then we have done a lot of good.
We can't teach this. It's a POV. NPOV, remember?
In hindsight this might have been a poor way of formulating myself. You are of course right, in the sense of "telling people what to do", we shouldn't "teach" anything.
What I'm saying is this: many, many, many people in the world are still today being taught that masturbation is incredibly harmful; that it will decrease your fertility, that it will make you stupid, that it will make you blind, or that it is deviant and only perverts do it (there are of course many more superstitions). If they go to wikipedia and check out the article, they might read this:
"Different studies have found that masturbation is frequent in humans. Alfred Kinsey's studies have shown that 92% of men and 62% of women have masturbated during lifespan."
And maybe then they will feel a little better about themselves, less ashamed of something that is perfectly natural. Or they might read this:
"It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression, stress and lead to a higher sense of self-worth (Hurlbert & Whittaker, 1991)."
Something I can personally attest to, by the way :)
This is what I'm saying; wikipedia just gives the straight information, it doesn't shy away from the topic, it doesn't take a stand, it just teaches what is indeed true: masturbation is virtually universal among men, and extremely common among women, it carries no health risk what-so-ever and it in fact can be very benifical for your health. This is what I meant by teaching people, sorting through superstitions and morality and telling people the truth.
--Oskar
On 3/2/08, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Here's something to discuss: a) Do you think an amateur photo is necessary to explain the concept of "woman masturbating"?
If it's a free photo and a good photo, who cares if it's shot by an amateur or professional.
I clearly mean "amateur" in the sense of poor quality, not in the sense of unpaid work.
b) How many images do you think is enough?
Commons doesn't work that way. It's simply a collection of free media. Should we complain that we have too much free media?
Yes, if it's low quality or is extremely similar. Would we *really* want 500 near-identical amateur (again, in the sense of "happy snap" rather than "extremely dedicated hobbyist") photos of Notre Dame?
Ok, I made this point before, but perhaps it didn't register: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with female masturbation, and to suggest that putting up photos of female masturbation is comparable to putting up images of someone being brutally murdered is something that I find very offensive.
Whether or not there is something wrong with X is not the same as whether there is something wrong with us providing photos of X. I'll leave it at that.
There are a lot of people who are ashamed of their sexuality, and there are a lot of girls (and boys for that matter) who have been taught that it is "dirty" to give yourself pleasure and their lives
That's some kind of moral argument which is irrelevant here.
Steve
On 3/2/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I clearly mean "amateur" in the sense of poor quality, not in the sense of unpaid work.
Well, that's not what the word means, so please use correct terminology so people can understand you.
(I can't believe I'm getting into this...)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amateur
Adjective. 3. showing a lack of professionalism, experience or talent Duct tape is a sure sign of amateur workmanship.
Steve