Wikipedian Indians on Bishakha Datta's Appointment, an outsider with involvement in wiki editing Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Wikipedian Indians on Bishakha Datta's Appointment, from: The Hindu.com

Indian feminist journalist and filmmaker Bishakha Datta was recent invited to join the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. She runs the Mumbai-based non-profit Point of View, which is "dedicated to disseminating women's perspectives through media, art and culture."

Noble gender balancing on behalf of Wikipedia San Francisco or a non-democratic cultural imperialist of Whites over Indian Wikipedian community?

Why, of course, the Wikimedia Foundation want trustees who know nothing about daily life on the Wikipedia!!! Let's see Bishakha Datta wiki-format a table or propose some hard core degradation pornography for deletion.

EXPLAINING HER PRIORITIES:

The virtual close-knit community of Wikipedians in India was bemused last week when the Wikimedia Foundation appointed its first ever Indian board member.

The predominantly male community was further astounded that the appointee was a woman, an “outsider” at that, with no background or involvement in wiki editing.

Even at the Bangalore Wikipedia meet, Ms. Dutta is conspicuous, being the only woman.

(IMG:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4869696251_87ec768ceb_z.jpg)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Probably better not to copy and paste then all over again then ...

It is difficult, I know, but here we have the best pictorial representation of the dissonances contained within the active Wikipedian community.

if I was an Indian contributor, and had been working away at the Wikipedia for years, I think I would been pretty aggrieved to have someone in San Francisco elect someone with no involvement and no experience over my head.

Datta, as a now responsible trustee, is either for or against the imagery and either for or against the culture than encourages them. They are, of course, by no means the worst on the Wikipedia.

The problem with the overt sexualization of a so-called encyclopedia (or even media in general) is that the sexualization does sexualize all elements of it. The defenders of such images claim they can see no sexual activity. The defenders of animated child porn claim it is not damaging because it is not real. I disagree. it is the composition of real elements and imagined that makes it sexual as we have discussed elsewhere.

The Foundation has a problem. It is exporting that problem worldwide. They block and defend themselves against any reasonable requests and suggestions whilst spending their time and money on positive PR ... such as the appointment of Ms Datta.

How do we get the message across to them?

For those not following this forum on a daily basis, the original discussion related to is here: Midnight68 and images all from the Wikipedia.

Keep - Images are in scope cop ... Describing images of children in underwear as Child Porn is ridicolous -I see no sex act in the images ... the delete votes seem to be based on moral panic and/or on false assumptions

-- Cyclopia (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanking, cross-dressing a boy in stockings and suspenders, images of clearly drawn pre-pubescent genitalia are not sexual? And I suppose the drawing of a medical instrument being used to spread a pre-pubescent female vagina is for educational purposes and useful for medical students.

--For God's sake keep out of it (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you speak up, please? I can't hear you over the noise of the over 9,000 fapping inclusionists here

-- Alison ❤ 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That kind of reply is neither useful nor warranted, Alison. Please refrain from impugning the motives of your fellow editors.

-- [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)