On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- geni

That sexual "deviancy" occupies such a large part of our work testifies to the mentality of college students with time on their hands.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: Actually, I find our coverage of sexuality to be rather poor, but anyway ... -Matt

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 21/02/2008, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- -Brock

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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 22/02/2008, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work, 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. -- Riana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana

On 2/22/08, Riana <wiki.riana(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. God only knows how a content filter is construed as censorship. Steve

On 2/22/08, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote: 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

I would support that. Principle of least surprise, and all that.

On 22/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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. - 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 24/02/2008, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've done 'em all anyway ;-) We hope for less disconcerted entomologists in future ... - d.

On 2/26/08, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)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. Cheers WilyD

Mark Wagner wrote: Kinky, if you're into that sort of thing.

On 26/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://www.nmr.nl/nmr/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=16&itemid=2574&… (PDF) - d.

On 2/27/08, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: Err, obviously we would use the best work that is available a free license. If it looks "amateur", then so be it. I agree, and will add that in general, most articles make the mistake of assuming too much background knowledge on the reader's part. Or "not free", but yes there is no basis for an upper limit on unique free images, regardless of what they depict. Damn kinky Canadians. o.O —C.W.

On 28/02/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: 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#Nec… - d.

On 01/03/2008, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: False Commons has deleted random penis pic submissions for quite some time. Commons does not exist to push your POV on sexuality. 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. -- geni

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:04 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: There is a difference between vandalism and honestly contributing media. 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!". 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 Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:45 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm sorry, but you don't find the comparison offensive? You do think murder and masturbation are comparable offenses? 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. 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) 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? Eh, whatever, not really the central focus of this discussion, is it :) --Oskar

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: Teaching there should not be racial discrimination" is a POV and we avoid this too.

On 01/03/2008, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: Murder is unlawful killing. Decapitation can be lawful under many situations. 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. "anyone can agree with that". Quite a number of people would agree that those are morally reasonable positions. 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. You've just contradicted yourself again. As are the reasons you presented to keep them "If we are able to teach the message..." 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. -- geni

On 3/2/08, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: I clearly mean "amateur" in the sense of poor quality, not in the sense of unpaid work. 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? 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. That's some kind of moral argument which is irrelevant here. Steve

Well, that's not what the word means, so please use correct terminology so people can understand you.