[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

Chad innocentkiller at gmail.com
Fri Jan 30 03:29:28 UTC 2009

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>wrote:

> voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at 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.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list