+1 Béria. Caroline
2012/4/27 Béria Lima <beria.l...@wikimedia.pt> > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
