I think this comment completely misses the point. Yes, if you go to articles on "deep throating" or "tit torture", you will surprise surprise, see images of those things. I don't see this as a big problem. The problem would be if the same images were showing up on articles unrelated to sexuality, but that does not appear to be the case at all from the examples that you and Larry Sanger have put forward.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here are results of a multimedia search for "human female" in Wikipedia > (NSFW): > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=100&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human+female > > > Did you look at the examples Larry mentioned in his post? > > There are many more: e.g. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-throating, viewed more than 50,000 > times this month (this actually had three rather than two images until a > couple of days ago: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep-throating&oldid=494580914) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_torture (16,000+ views this month) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake (120,000+ views this month) > > Basically, if you go through the articles listed in en:WP templates like > the sexual slang template, the Outline of BDSM template etc. you will come > across many such articles, all with high viewing figures. > > An example from de:WP: > http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaginalverkehr&oldid=97830340 > > Source: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/46879013@N03/4414846436/ > http://www.flickr.com/people/46879013@N03 > > The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's > terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating > that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of > US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without having > documentation of model age, name, and publication consent is in breach of > US law; see discussion at > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F > > Andreas > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Laura Hale <la...@fanhistory.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman <kim.os...@qut.edu.au> wrote: >> >>> My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of >>> addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at >>> times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of >>> pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the >>> clubhouse walls >>> >> >> Hi, >> >> I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing >> Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on >> Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it >> when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. >> Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, >> youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where >> pornography is very prevalent? >> >> -- >> twitter: purplepopple >> blog: ozziesport.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
