On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson <cindam...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've found this line of dialogue interesting but have hesitated to > participate. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I arrived with a goal > to bring some balance to many of the articles pertaining to domestic and > international human trafficking and pornography. I soon realized that > pornography and closely aligned topics were very heated. I encountered > vulgar language, gender discrimination, objectification of women, and a less > than hospitable environment that taught everybody to refrain from being > dicks. I left for three years with no plans to return. > > My professional background includes speaking before local, state, and > national legislative commissions and government houses on these issues, in > addition to obscenity and the secondary harmful affects of pornography. I > come from a long line of preachers, judges, and family members that are > serving as city mayors, county commissioners, a US Senator, and state > legislators. At the same time, I have many close friends that currently > write, produce, and star in adult films. Then there are my stripper and > hooker friends. I also work with global agencies and government officials to > assist individuals escaping human trafficking situations from throughout > Southeast Asia, Western Europe, and North America. This is my area of > expertise. And the area of my life that I have long maintained separately > from Wikipedia. > > While I say this hesitantly, I am one example of an editor that left due to > the divide between the genders represented on Wikipedia. > > All that said, there is a lack of knowledge and ability on Wikipedia to > differentiate between pornography and obscenity. Pornography is defined as > erotic content or material that is intended or created to cause sexual > arousal or excitement. That said, erotic content that depicts or displays > sexual organs, sexual intercourse, or sexual acts may not always be defined > as pornography. This is the case with content and materials presented for > educational purposes. > > (In the US, outside of child pornography, pornography may only be regulated, > based on the identified secondary harmful affects on the community in which > it is created and/or distributed.) > > In the US, obscenity can be legislated according to local, regional, state > laws. It is up to each community to determine what constitutes obscenity. > And these laws can often change over the years, based on the norms of the > individuals that vote to pass or fail the proposed regulations. At the same > time, obscenity is defined differently throughout the world from one country > and culture to the next. > > Due to the global nature of Wikipedia, I doubt that we will ever be able to > establish guidelines regarding the presence of pornography. The rule of > thumb is that which is determined to be educational. This differs from one > person and one culture to the next. What one Wikipedian may find obscene, > another may not. This can only be determined by the community. Is an image > merely presented to bring shock and awe? Entice? Arouse? Or is it presented > for educational purposes? Heck, even an image of arousal may be presented > for educational purposes. The issue of pornography can really only be > determined on a case by case basis. > > As I earlier stated, I left Wikipedia for three years due to the vulgarity > and discrimination against women. I returned because I enjoy writing during > my spare time. Wikipedia is reflective of our global culture, no matter > where you choose to spend your time. When it comes right down to it, if I > don't want to see it, as in my daily life, all I have to do is stay out of > the Wikipedia red light district. > > Cindy
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Kim Osman <kim.os...@qut.edu.au> wrote: > I totally agree with you - I have never come across anything remotely > offensive in the course of editing or browsing. What I was trying to say is > that rather than being a reason more females don't edit Wikipedia (and > perhaps here my use of the word prevalence was wrong) the presence of certain > types of pornography on Wikipedia contributes to the culture which results in > the instances of misogny and discrimination you note. So I do see the > editorial decisions made around the type of content Larry Sanger referenced > as being part of a wider conversation about female participation. > > Cheers, Kim Cindy and Kim, thank you both for your messages and perspectives -- it's always nice to hear from newer voices on the list, especially in discussions that tend to get heated and dominated by just a few people. And Kim, welcome to Wikipedia, and Cindy, welcome back -- and happy writing :) -- phoebe _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
