[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
fordmadoxfraud at gmail.com
Fri Jan 30 03:46:20 UTC 2009
"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should."
For what reason, specifically?
On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com
> > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l