[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #431 - 16 msgs

[koyaanis qatsi]

KQ writes:
>> I'm not being a wag; I'm being serious when I say
that
>> if Bill Clinton (and other articles) fit into one
>> category only, then we're recreating subpages.

Stevertigo writes:
>I think this is all off the point. We all in good
>faith understand what reasonable people could be
>objecting to - namely articles like teabagging,
>buttplugs, creampies, the list goes on...

Is it really so unclear what I'm saying?  The idea of
what is "sexually explicit" has at various times
included piano legs, women's ankles, and Elvis
Presley's hips.  In quite a few places on the planet,
it still includes women's ankles, and I'm sure it
would include Elvis Presley's hips as well.  For an
example in the opposite direction, Robert Mapplethorpe
considered his work "erotic," yet many (many) people
consider it "pornographic."  Should I point you to the
obscenity trials for James Joyce's _Ulysses_?  Anyway,
tagging articles with commentary of that
sort--"sexually explicit," etc.--is the same as
imposing your cultural POV onto them; in other words,
it is the same as declaring the wikipedia a developed
nation's middle-class anglocentric-pedia.  Exactly how
is that of benefit to us?

kq

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com