Katrin, I hate to be captain obvious here, but: Do you know that "cun shot" is a porn related term right? Only used in Porn related articles (see related articles<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Cum_shot>)? And that what is in the article isn't a picture, but a illustration?
I do agreed when people complained about the naked gardening article and pic, because isn't a sex related article. But this IS a sex related article, not only, this one is a PORN related article. Is not like someone will fall there accidentally by looking for Jesus or Santa. Therefore, I don't see the reason to censor the article. ____ *Béria Lima* * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* On 27 April 2012 08:51, Katrin Rönicke <kat...@yahoo.de> wrote: > ** > Hey everybody, > > a friend of mine sent me a notice: the Wikipedia article "Cumshot" has a > picture which in my humble opinion is nothing else than pornography. once > again. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumshot > > I already tried to delete it from the German Wikipedia - but its being > restored immediately ... > there has already been a great discussion about it in the German Wikipedia > (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Cumshot) and its the usual > thing: moralty, a narrowed mind and everything is being used against > critics of the picture... > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Cumshot > its almost the same in the English Wikipedia: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cum_shot arguing you need to have it, > because it's an encyclopedia - to me seems really bizarre. > > I really doubt, that there is ANY need for a picture in articles like this > one. > I really doubt if there is ANY need of the article... but I would be able > to get along with it. accept it. especially if it has - like the English > one has, the German one not - a more deeper view of the intellectual > discussion, like the critique of Dworkin und the answer of Moore. (And I > really like to have this in the German Wikipedia too - when i find the > time, I'm going to edit it). > > So what do you think could be done, that articles like this are not seen > as an invitation and perfect explanation for using pornographic pictures... > ? > > Maybe we can come back to some points Sue Gardner made several Months ago > (talking about the picture of the naked woman in the pregnancy article): > What are the quality-rules we want to have for Wikipedia, to make it an > encyclopedia? what kind of picturing does a good encyclopedia need - which > not? > > Maybe the best way of discussing such issues really is from a neutral > point of view and generally discussed for all kinds of pictures - not only > those few pornographic examples. > > Katrin > > ----------- > mailto:kat...@fraulila.de <kat...@fraulila.de> > Frau Lila - Feministische Initiative <http://fraulila.de> > Katrin-Roenicke.de <http://katrin-roenicke.de/> > Meine Kolumne beim Freitag <http://www.freitag.de/community/blogs/katrin> > > Hilfskraft am Lehrstuhl für Politische > Theorie<http://www.social-science.hu-berlin.de/lehrbereiche/theorie-der-politik/mitarbeiter-innen/katrin-ronicke> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
