I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of image I am aware of.
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com
wrote:
"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
What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get in the first 100?
-Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l