On 12/09/2011 02:43, Sarah Stierch wrote:
One thing Wikimedia as a whole /suffers/ from is no "solidity" when it
comes to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted,
broken, changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem.
Absolutely. I think in this case the real troublemaker is the admin, and
the original poster is almost an innocent boy trying to post something
he deems erotic or daring. By the admin's behaviour we see that the
original poster is almost encouraged to behave like a bad little boy.
It is obvious that a photo of the vulva should show the vulva. If the
admin doesn't understand that then he is hopeless and must go back to
highschool for several years. He is certainly not scientifically
literate enough to hold a position on Wikipedia.
You don't have to discuss with an admin who doesn't understand that a
photo of an organ must show the organ.
You don't have to discuss with an admin who doesn't understand that
photos of anatomy should be as devoid of erotic content as possible.
Democracy should not go that far as to negociate with total incompetence.
Either this admin is really stupid, and should never have made it to his
position in WP, or he is being perverse with the vulva page.
If find it very difficult to believe that a person literate enough to
make it to the position of admin on WP would be illiterate enough to not
understand that a photo named vulva in the vulva page should show a
vulva, and should avoid evocation of private life promiscuity.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap