"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should."
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@gmail.com
wrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always considered that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
remaining
culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
Hosting
a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
borderline
voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad
Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said: just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should.
Quality over quantity.
-Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l