Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
On 05/23/2013 02:58 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: How strange that people take the trouble to upload those! I've been wondering about this myself. Why do people port collections of images from Flickr CC to Commons in the first place? If someone really needed a weird nude picture for an article, they could still find it at Flickr and import it then. (This might be part of my bias that WC is supposed to support other projects and not be an inclusive repo of all CC content in the world.) Indeed, I wonder what percentage of WC resources is not used by an affiliated project? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2...@reagle.orgwrote: On 05/23/2013 02:58 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: How strange that people take the trouble to upload those! I've been wondering about this myself. Why do people port collections of images from Flickr CC to Commons in the first place? If someone really needed a weird nude picture for an article, they could still find it at Flickr and import it then. (This might be part of my bias that WC is supposed to support other projects and not be an inclusive repo of all CC content in the world.) Indeed, I wonder what percentage of WC resources is not used by an affiliated project? Joseph, I'm curious to probe your stated bias a little. What do you think of a project like the Archives of American Art, which has uploaded a tremendous number of images to Commons, the vast majority of which are not used in any Wikimedia project? See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Archives_of_American_Art Is that a worthwhile project, or is it putting Commons to a use that you'd rather not see? Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Well I suppose that on some level the people who upload those images believe them to be artistic in some way. After looking at most of the artist categories of the 17th century, I have noticed that it's generally the tits-and-ass images that find their way on to Wikipedia first. I myself have uploaded a few for lesser known artists for whom only those images were available at the time. Now, a few years later I am surprised to find that many of those artists were pretty good landscapists or still-life painters as well. As far as what percentage of Wikimedia Commons pictures are actually used in sister projects, no idea, but I suspect it's less than 50% On May 23, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote: On 05/23/2013 02:58 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: How strange that people take the trouble to upload those! I've been wondering about this myself. Why do people port collections of images from Flickr CC to Commons in the first place? If someone really needed a weird nude picture for an article, they could still find it at Flickr and import it then. (This might be part of my bias that WC is supposed to support other projects and not be an inclusive repo of all CC content in the world.) Indeed, I wonder what percentage of WC resources is not used by an affiliated project? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
When someone said how come no one makes a big deal about category:foo when category:blahporn is always getting messed with!! and i ended up nominating a ton of crappy flower photos for deletion. It was pretty funny, and dear god there are some crappy flower photos. Why have crappy photos. It's like we are doing a disservice! But, yeah, I'm sure for the most part people aren't sitting around and searching for porno on Commons. I think there are better places for that. I use Commons to look at bird pr0n (birds..like...real...birds...the one's that fly and have feathers) and pinball machines. So whatever. Sarah ps who can now say all these scary things cause she's now an admin on Commons ;) On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Joseph et al On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2...@reagle.orgwrote: On 05/23/2013 02:58 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: How strange that people take the trouble to upload those! I've been wondering about this myself. Why do people port collections of images from Flickr CC to Commons in the first place? If someone really needed a weird nude picture for an article, they could still find it at Flickr and import it then. (This might be part of my bias that WC is supposed to support other projects and not be an inclusive repo of all CC content in the world.) Indeed, I wonder what percentage of WC resources is not used by an affiliated project? Simply put, because Commons is a repository of freely licenced media. We now have over 17 million files on Commons, so it is likely that a large percentage of files are not in use, but alas being a repository we hold such collections for potential future use. One of my favourite porn categories is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport (I use porn because in some minds its all Commons hosts and not much else). Do we require 773 photos of All Nippon Airways aircraft at Tokyo International Airport? Probably not, but as you can see it has a wide range of aircraft, individual registrations, different stages of aircraft operation (take-off, landing, taxiing, etc), different views of aircraft in operation, etc. Most of those photos are from a single photographer -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_from_Kentaro_Iemoto_Flickr_stream -- he relicenced his stream after I contacted him -- nearly 4,000 photos of all sorts of aircraft, airlines, airports, views, etc, etc, etc. This one category makes most sexuality categories pale in comparison. But yet we don't see anything being said about this category. Russavia ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- -- *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
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
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. :) 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? On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: When someone said how come no one makes a big deal about category:foo when category:blahporn is always getting messed with!! and i ended up nominating a ton of crappy flower photos for deletion. It was pretty funny, and dear god there are some crappy flower photos. Why have crappy photos. It's like we are doing a disservice! But, yeah, I'm sure for the most part people aren't sitting around and searching for porno on Commons. I think there are better places for that. I use Commons to look at bird pr0n (birds..like...real...birds...the one's that fly and have feathers) and pinball machines. So whatever. Sarah ps who can now say all these scary things cause she's now an admin on Commons ;) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
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. :) 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? On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: When someone said how come no one makes a big deal about category:foo when category:blahporn is always getting messed with!! and i ended up nominating a ton of crappy flower photos for deletion. It was pretty funny, and dear god there are some crappy flower photos. Why have crappy photos. It's like we are doing a disservice! But, yeah, I'm sure for the most part people aren't sitting around and searching for porno on Commons. I think there are better places for that. I use Commons to look at bird pr0n (birds..like...real...birds...the one's that fly and have feathers) and pinball machines. So whatever. Sarah ps who can now say all these scary things cause she's now an admin on Commons ;) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: 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
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Yes, I totally agree with the beer spitting part, and also wish you lots of luck and patience with your adminship! Most people don't realize that of the 15 million files on Commons, 99% of the ones *not* linked into a sister project are pretty well unfindable unless you happen to google the name of the file. As far as notablity guidelines go for categories, I am not sure that this could be done, or that it would be useful. The category trees on Commons are one of Wikipedia's best-kept secrets, despite all the linking going on from sister projects like the English Wikipedia. Hopefully WikiData will change that. These categories are extremely useful however for insiders. What I do think might be enforceable through the Wikimedia Commons uploader is that for photos of a location, the local name of the location should be in the file name, and for art, the name of the artist should be in the filename, and for portraits of people, the name of the person should be in the filename. I myself try to keep a basic hierarchy as a naming convention, in the order Artist - subject - where - date and if I don't know the subject's name or place or date, I try to approximately describe this. Recently I started adding the museum accession number if there is one. So for example the name on this one should give an impression of what it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Hals_-_Violin_player_in_a_dune_landscape_1930.30.jpg The main problem with enforcing such naming conventions is the English-centric bias built-in, though that is not the issue here. The subject category of this email thread may be by some artist and using such a naming system would allow the uploader to sort the uploads into some category where people could use notability conventions for artists, in which case the deletion discussion becomes much easier. On the English Wikipedia, I believe notability guidelines are that an artwork must be worth about 3,000 dollars or more. This includes almost anything that has survived before 1800, but would not include most modern art such as these photographs. We would have a problem with grafitti art artists though, so maybe an exception could be made for street art. On May 24, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote: 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
I use Commons to look at bird pr0n (birds..like...real...birds...the one's that fly and have feathers) and pinball machines. So whatever. Confession: I have taken and uploaded one of those bird-porn photos: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cockatiels_mating.jpg We still have one of those two birds. Daniel Case ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:34 AM, pu...@killerchihuahua.com wrote: Actually, I found the descriptions well written and helpful. I don't quite understand Sarah's objection. To expand on Sarah's explanation: We are discussing these images precisely because viewing them causes many people, including people on this list, to feel uncomfortable and unhappy. Describing them in words causes a similar effect. Perhaps an analogy would help: Imagine that you don't like gory horror movies. So instead, someone narrates one out loud while you cover your eyes. While it won't be quite as horrifying, it will still upset you. -VAL -- You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture! Donate at http://donate.adainitiative.org ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Actually, I found the descriptions well written and helpful. I don't quite understand Sarah's objection. Original Message Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology From: Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com Date: Fri, May 17, 2013 9:34 pm To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org I apologize Sarah. I thought that descriptions of the images would allow those who cannot view them to evaluate the contents if they wish. It will not happen again. Nepenthe On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Hi,I'd like to ask that people don't use this mailing list to get into in depth explanations of what the images look like. Simply saying "NSFW" is good enough for me. I can tell by reading the captions 1) I don't want to look at them 2) I don't want to hear what they look like.It's as uncomfortable for me to read and hear the descriptions, as it is for me to see the descriptions. Thanks,Sarahwho is no longer a moderator here, but had to say something. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote: Bling-bling - table.jpg (An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read "table") is in use on the fr.wikipedia's article on sexual objectification. Torso of nude woman with facebook like button.jpg is being used on a Russian wikinews article about Facebook's like button. I guess the fact that it's painted onto a nude woman is a bonus? It's also used on pt.wikipedia's body painting article. Outer labia piercing.jpg (Close up of a female crotch wearing pink panties pushed aside to reveal a large ring piercing through the outer labia. Another person's hand, with "a" written in rhinestones, is pulling on the ring. Get it! Link!) is used on a number of genital piercing articles. Need to stop. Too depressing. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen o...@palnatoke.org wrote: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!category=Nude+portrayals+of+computer+technology should answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails -Ole.On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However... Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects? -georgeOn Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity. The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed." ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- -george william herbertgeorge.herb...@gmail.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 ___ 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 -- -- Sarah StierchMuseumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian www.sarahstierch.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
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
The reaction that EVula got /is/ disappointing. But so is EVula's reaction to the reaction. Is it any surprise that someone who proclaims Commons to be a fucking joke and a cesspool isn't going to get congratulated for an out-of-process deletion? This is the biggest problem I have. When even Jimbo can't talk about Commons without disparagement, it undermines everything that we're trying to do over there. The notion that consent for the photograph is different from consent to be disseminated on Commons is a new one to many of us (no matter how much sense it makes), and it takes time for that notion to spread through the Commons community. Moreover, the vast majority of Commons contributors - and Commons content, for that matter - are well outside these controversial areas. It's extremely discouraging to see all of Commons painted with this broad brush when we're really dealing with a small number of people who are largely acting in good faith to defend free content (and, true, an even smaller number who just like to see pictures of naked people). Powers 8^] -Original Message- From: Michelle Gallaway [mailto:mgalla...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 18 May 2013 00:40 To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, booth babes and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than an outright attempt to titillate. Are random artistic images in Commons scope? Of course, a lot of the creepier denizens of Commons probably can't appreciate that distinction. The reaction that EVula got is really disappointing. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi again, Admin User:Evula attempted to delete them per COM:SCOPE but every single one was immediately restored. People are now yelling at him on his talk page. -- Allie On May 17, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson l_guldbrands...@hotmail.com wrote: Oh, this was not good. I wonder how many of these were taken and uploaded voluntarily. Best wishes, Lennart Guldbrandsson Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05 Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål. Jimmy Wales From: coot...@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology Hi all, Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology. I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWE. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example. -- Allie ___ Gendergap mailing listgender...@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
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
By the way, I am constantly surprised at the tone in some of the discussions on Commons. I rarely meet that normally on Swedish WIkipedia. But I am not naive about it. I know that it exists. Some time ago, I wrote a blog post about how there is actually several encyclopedias all rolled together under the same trademark. Each encyclopedia has its own culture, and quality. For instance, the articles about birds on svwp are second to none, even enwp. That's because we have a large ornithologically interested group of Swedish Wikipedians. There, the discussion climate is friendly and result oriented. In other areas, the quality is lower, but so is the level of discussion. http://wikimediasverige.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/det-finns-inte-bara-en-wikipedia/ Here the tone seems hostile and the level of quality low. I wish I had a good answer on how to counter that. Best wishes, Lennart Guldbrandsson Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05 Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål. Jimmy Wales From: l_guldbrands...@hotmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:20:09 + Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology Wow, that escalated fast. All caps and demands. I can in some fashion understand the argument made in the section above (without caps lock), but still, nah. It's gratuitous. Best wishes, Lennart Guldbrandsson Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05 Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål. Jimmy Wales From: coot...@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:09:49 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology Hi again, Admin User:Evula attempted to delete them per COM:SCOPE but every single one was immediately restored. People are now yelling at him on his talk page. -- Allie On May 17, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson l_guldbrands...@hotmail.com wrote:Oh, this was not good. I wonder how many of these were taken and uploaded voluntarily. Best wishes, Lennart Guldbrandsson Personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal Mobil: 070 - 207 80 05 Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål. Jimmy Wales From: coot...@mac.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:58:12 -0700 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology Hi all, Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology. I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWE. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example. -- Allie ___ Gendergap mailing listgender...@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 ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!category=Nude+portrayals+of+computer+technologyshould answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails -Ole. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However... Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects? -george On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity. The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
Hi, I'd like to ask that people don't use this mailing list to get into in depth explanations of what the images look like. Simply saying NSFW is good enough for me. I can tell by reading the captions 1) I don't want to look at them 2) I don't want to hear what they look like. It's as uncomfortable for me to read and hear the descriptions, as it is for me to see the descriptions. Thanks, Sarah who is no longer a moderator here, but had to say something. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote: Bling-bling - table.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bling-bling_-_table.jpg(An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read table) is in use on the fr.wikipedia's article on sexual objectification. Torso of nude woman with facebook like button.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torso_of_nude_woman_with_facebook_like_button.jpgis being used on a Russian wikinews article about Facebook's like button. I guess the fact that it's painted onto a nude woman is a bonus? It's also used on pt.wikipedia's body painting article. Outer labia piercing.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outer_labia_piercing.jpg(Close up of a female crotch wearing pink panties pushed aside to reveal a large ring piercing through the outer labia. Another person's hand, with a written in rhinestones, is pulling on the ring. Get it! Link!) is used on a number of genital piercing articles. Need to stop. Too depressing. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen o...@palnatoke.org wrote: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!category=Nude+portrayals+of+computer+technologyshould answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails -Ole. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However... Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects? -george On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity. The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 ___ 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 -- -- *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
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
I apologize Sarah. I thought that descriptions of the images would allow those who cannot view them to evaluate the contents if they wish. It will not happen again. Nepenthe On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I'd like to ask that people don't use this mailing list to get into in depth explanations of what the images look like. Simply saying NSFW is good enough for me. I can tell by reading the captions 1) I don't want to look at them 2) I don't want to hear what they look like. It's as uncomfortable for me to read and hear the descriptions, as it is for me to see the descriptions. Thanks, Sarah who is no longer a moderator here, but had to say something. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.comwrote: Bling-bling - table.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bling-bling_-_table.jpg(An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read table) is in use on the fr.wikipedia's article on sexual objectification. Torso of nude woman with facebook like button.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torso_of_nude_woman_with_facebook_like_button.jpgis being used on a Russian wikinews article about Facebook's like button. I guess the fact that it's painted onto a nude woman is a bonus? It's also used on pt.wikipedia's body painting article. Outer labia piercing.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outer_labia_piercing.jpg(Close up of a female crotch wearing pink panties pushed aside to reveal a large ring piercing through the outer labia. Another person's hand, with a written in rhinestones, is pulling on the ring. Get it! Link!) is used on a number of genital piercing articles. Need to stop. Too depressing. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen o...@palnatoke.org wrote: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=Do+it!category=Nude+portrayals+of+computer+technologyshould answer George's question. It takes a while loading and it isn't worksafe - unless you can get away with thumbnails -Ole. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: I'm at work and can't really get away with looking at the gallery images from here without trouble. However... Has anyone looked at them to see where (if anywhere) they are in use on projects? -george On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with inspiring rapidity. The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive; only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: Pornographic? Sure, don't care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must have consented to publication on Commons, case closed. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 ___ 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 -- -- *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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, booth babes and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than an outright attempt to titillate. Are random artistic images in Commons scope? Of course, a lot of the creepier denizens of Commons probably can't appreciate that distinction. The reaction that EVula got is really disappointing. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Alison Cassidy coot...@mac.com wrote: Hi all, Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer technologyhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology (NSFW) even exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only tangential references to computer technology. I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of SWEhttp://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org. Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example. -- Allie ___ 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
