[Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

[Lodewijk]

The question shouldn't be about who is right - whether it is good that
certain images are not considered "safe for work" - we are not in a position
to change the opinion of society, and we shouldn't want to be in such
position either.

The discussion however should be, if at all, about whether we want to offer
people the option to view content in such environments without being
constantly on their guard for what content might pop up. Do we want to offer
people to tweak the images of Wikipedia in such a way that it suits their
life style, that they can use Wikipedia where and when they would want to?

The board clearly answered that question with yes. Do you think it is better
to force people to choose between watching an article with an image they do
not want to see, and not seeing the article at all?

Lodewijk

Am 6. September 2011 16:44 schrieb Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
> > >
> > >
> > No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> > keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> > "educational and high quality."
> >
> You're saying that a picture of a stripper with her legs wide open can in
> no
> way be educational and high quality? The undertone from this statement is
> that "It would be better and less offensive if her legs were closed" which
> to me highlights the censorship problem precisely.
>
>
> >
> > My boss, who is bound to have a baby any day now, can't open the
> pregnancy
> > article at work because the intro is NSFW our workplace. I can't open the
> > [[vagina]] article at work either, because of the really in your face
> photo
> > of a vagina when you open it up, however, I can totally read the intro to
> > [[penis]] since there isn't a big giant penis in one's face upon opening
> > it.
> > I work in an educational environment (a museum institution, which has
> > exhibits on sexuality, gender, etc) and I can't even look at these
> articles
> > at work, take that as you will.
> >
> This raises twin issues. First, it raises the presumption that you and your
> boss's workplace ought to be the model for how people around the world
> determine what they should or shouldn't see -- at home OR at work.
>
> Second, it echoes my first paragraph that it makes a judgment call about
> the
> appropriateness of a specific image based on the perceived "immoralness" or
> "embarassment" of that image.
>
>
> > "The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this
> > anti-sexualized
> > environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many
> are
> > pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what
> > other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America.  I
> > think
> > you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
> > supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
> > conservatives."
>
>
> The above paragraph is one massive "Citations Needed", but that aside, it
> misses the point.
>
> "Many are...." carries with it that "some aren't."
> "Some don't" implies that "some do."
>
> In criticizing Milos for generalizing the opinions of one population, you
> yourself are doing the exact same thing. We don't have that data, and I'm
> sure if there WERE any it could be easily picked apart on methodological
> issues. The broader lesson is that attempting to generalize a view on
> morality to any populace is doomed to inaccuracy and failure.
>  -Dan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>