[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia

[Chad]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -Chad
>

What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get
in the first 100?

-Chad