On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Well you do realise that now you are an admin your days of browsing any > type of pr0n are behind you. ;) > > You are right, no-one in their right mind would use Commons to search for > pr0n. I just did a search for big dick on Google, and there is one result > from a WMF project in the Top 100 results -- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Donato -- obviously picked up because > he was on BIG brother. But amongst the other 99 results from the top 100 > there are all sorts of sites one would go to if they wanted to see, well, > big dick. :) > > I must admit. This had me LOLing and almost spitting this delicious beer on my laptop. > In relation to the category Alison raised -- are they in scope? Who the > hell knows. I am very liberal minded, and have a very liberal > interpretation of scope as it pertains to our projects, and while I > struggle to see scope in those images, I am sure there might be some sort > of scope there -- even if they were to illustrate an article on the gender > gap in computer sciences -- would that be an encyclopaedic topic? > Crazy insane idea: notability guidelines for media categories? /me hides -Sarah -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com*
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
