GenderGaffe, GenderGate : Kinder, Gendler Wikipediots, For Discussion of the Less Divine Comedies of WikiPutia Options

[Jon Awbrey]

¼coming …

Hide your dotters …

This thread is spun off from a previous thread that got moved to the Editors Forum.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I have SafeSearch off and it takes me to the bottom of the second page on Google before I get boobage, and I haven't yet found a pic that involves bondage gear. Of course both of these feature prominently on the first page of the Commons category, and I'm reasonably certain that one of the images on that category page qualifies as child porn (although I did not look at it full size so as to avoid being made certain enough to need to launder my hard drive, and could therefore be wrong).

The other thing I notice is that the Google Images results have multiple images of JUST the shorts, not being worn by anyone at all, and quite a few more where the image is cropped midriff to thigh so all you get are the shorts. There are no images of unworn shorts on the first page of the category, and only a handful of images cropped to show just the topic.

Of course, this just once again confirms what we've know for ages about Commons: it is, primarily, a porn repository that also happens to contain bits of other stuff. The vast bulk of its content is unsuitable for any legitimate general educational purpose.

Still, I doubt this has much direct impact on the participation of women at Wikipedia. Just because the porn is there doesn't mean you have to look at it, and while the communities tolerate, even encourage, the collection of such content, they also discourage people from linking to it randomly or creating galleries in likely-to-be-stumbled-upon places of nothing but porn (because doing that sort of thing makes Wikipedia look bad and is therefore a no-no). So the casual woman editor is unlikely to be confronted head-on with a big page of porno, at least early in her career.

I don't deny that the "Commons as Porn Repository" dynamic causes problems for Commons and for Wikimedia generally. I just don't think it's the major factor, or even a significant factor, that is discouraging women from participating.

[Jon Awbrey]

Still, I doubt this has much direct impact on the participation of women at Wikipedia. Just because the porn is there doesn't mean you have to look at it, and while the communities tolerate, even encourage, the collection of such content, they also discourage people from linking to it randomly or creating galleries in likely-to-be-stumbled-upon places of nothing but porn (because doing that sort of thing makes Wikipedia look bad and is therefore a no-no). So the casual woman editor is unlikely to be confronted head-on with a big page of porno, at least early in her career.

I don't deny that the “Commons as Porn Repository” dynamic causes problems for Commons and for Wikimedia generally. I just don't think it's the major factor, or even a significant factor, that is discouraging women from participating.

As always, we need to back away from the feelthy pictures and take a culture perspective on the scene. It's not just that anime or gaminess or risky wikiness is stored on servers paid for with tax-free donation dollars — it's the sort of people who do that sort of thing — and fact that they rule everything else there. It is their mindset that pervades the whole atmosphere. That is what drives adults, scholars, women, ad nauseated people out.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)