Just a note to say a huge thanks to Andreas, DracoEssentialis, John Vandenberg, and others for working to remove the image that was on [[Donkey Punch]].
And to DracoE for bringing it to Sue Gardner's attention on her talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&curid=13388176&diff=476880331&oldid=476727515 That page has had 29,000 hits so far this month, and had 381,705 in January (while an animated cartoon of a woman being beaten while anally penetrated was still on it). http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/Donkey%20punch It would be wonderful if we could find some kind of project-wide solution to this kind of thing. Sarah On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Andreas K. <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Steven Walling <swall...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Andreas K. <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> My wife pointed me to this animation a couple of days ago: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%22Donkey_punch%22_(animated).gif >>> >>> It is/was included (there is currently edit-warring about it) in the >>> Donkey punch article in the English Wikipedia: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch >>> >>> This has been one of the most viewed articles in Wikipedia of late, with >>> nearly 400,000 page views this last month. >>> >>> http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Donkey_punch >>> >>> Views? >> >> >> Speaking purely as an editor... >> >> I don't care if we had a majority of female editors. That image is just >> awful as an encyclopedia illustration -- it's the kind of thing you see on >> Tumblr or 4chan. >> >> Practically speaking, I doubt Commons will delete it, but I think people >> who feel strongly should just comment on the Wikipedia talk page. > > > > There is a discussion on the article talk page, as well as Jimbo's talk > page. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Seriously.3F > > The problem, Steven, is that established editors rarely show up on pages > about topics like pornography or sexual slang -- perhaps because they don't > want to have such article titles in their edit history -- and a small group > of NOTCENSORED advocates is enough to keep these articles in a 4chan state. > On both sides, it is always pretty much the same dozen editors or so who > meet for another NOTCENSORED war. And usually the NOTCENSORED crowd win, > unless Jimbo comes riding in on his white horse, as he did in the Pregnancy > article. That's not a good system. > > Established and responsible editors beaver away on learned articles that get > 30 views a day, which is all very well, but this article received 129,000 > views in just one day last month. These articles are our calling cards, and > our recruitment posters. For better or worse, they tell potential new > editors out there what we are about. > > Andreas > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
