[Gendergap] Category:Women in sexually appealing postures
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@fairpoint.net)
Tue Feb 8 15:01:29 UTC 2011


I've created Category:Women in sexually appealing postures on Commons.

This is a matter of correctly classifying the sort of pictures we have
discussed here which have this quality, sometimes inappropriately.

Category:Men in sexually appealing postures is obviously required also.

In terms of the category tree on Commons Category:Women in sexually
appealing postures is one of four branches of Categories: Women,Posture,
and People by setting

Category:Girls by posture (birth – 13 (puberty))
Category:Adolescent girls by posture (13 - 17 years)
Category:Women by posture (18 - 59 years)
Category:Old women by posture

I think this exercise should serve to clarify the nature of the images we
are hosting and should be an aid to further discussion.

Fred

Best entry in the GenderGap list:

"Maybe we need a special rule for this mailing list: after every five posts you have to take a break, step away, and try to convince a woman you know that they should be contributing to Wikipedia. After they make their first edit, come back to the mailing list …

— phoebe"

We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.


If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.

We had 4 active females in the IRC room last night. I linked it. They universally thought Fred was an idiot.

If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.

If the WMF is serious about getting more females, I think they can start by purging Fred and those who think like him.

Remind me again ... wasn't Fred the one who allegedly slept with one of his coworkers? Or something like that, and he got disbarred or whatever?

those of you who know me might remember that there is one, more illogical, thing that gets under my skin more than almost anything else: Wikipe-tan and her short skirt and thigh-high stockings. Why, WHY is it ok that we even joke about that being our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture that permeates a lot of collaborative sites these days. It doesn't even occur to a lot of men that that could be off-putting. They certainly don't mean it to be off-putting. And they're a little wounded when someone points out that, well, it *is*.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000027.html

I think the segment of the female population who would actively seek out participation in a site where Wikipe-tan was a frequently-seen icon is very, very small. I'm particularly concerned about one of the "examples" at the bottom labeled "Gothic Lolita Wikipe-tan, which is entirely the wrong message.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000051.html

Yeah, it's total boy zone material!!

As a woman who grew up in boys clubs - dabbling in the "gaming" culture as a teenager (yes, Dungeons and Dragons, Advanced, thanks!) etc, I've seen that stupid anime Sailor Moon wanna-be cartoon in a million different ways and I hated it as a teenager and I hate it as an adult. A teenage boys dream, that's what I always saw it as.

I was talking about my experience at the Wikipedia 10 event here in DC - I compared it to a "gaming convention." Not every guy is into anime and coding who is a Wikipedian, but, when the "mascot" came on the screen during a video most people (most = men) cheered, except, well, me, and the women from the Library of Congress who didn't seem to impressed.

But, I also don't see that mascot used too frequently, perhaps I'm hanging out in the right circles.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000052.html

Joseph Reagle joseph.2008 at reagle.org
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000067.html

Amazing that Joe Reagle, who has written a whole book about Wikipedia, claims never to have noticed ‘Wikipi-tan’.

Worse, or whatever.

Quite the he said she said situation. I'd love to see the court transcript because I've having a very hard time imagining the two women sounding more credible in this situation. The new girlfriend and soon to be ex-wife in the same room talking to the husband's lawyer on the phone ... the lawyer proceeds to tell the soon to be ex-wife confidential information then attempts to solicit her and the girlfriend (new girlfriend of this woman's soon to be ex-husband) for money? If true it would support the lunatic claim, but its just rather hard to believe. Then again I don't live in Colorado ...

Another insightful comment about hardcore pornography here

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gende...ary/000443.html

And a useful link to an essay by Herostratus. Note the attempts to censor what he is saying (from the opponents of 'censorship' of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398752398

Perhaps we were too harsh about Herostratus. He is saying that hardcore pornography is misogynistic. I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.

So, you're putting your hunches above the written opinion of state supreme court justices?

That's interesting.

What are your credentials?

At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue. He'll fail, of course, but knowing that in advance hasn't stopped him in the past.

what type of credentials are you looking for?

Under normal Wikipedia policy, wouldn't one need a reliable source to the effect that a particular posture was "sexually attractive" (to whom?), rather than relying upon one's own subjective judgment?

At the risk of playing Fred's Devil's Advocate here, is it possible that Fred is setting up these categories merely to prove the obvious point, which is that Wikipedia is incapable of dealing with the porn situation on its own? Given that so many Wikipedians have completely missed this point, maybe Fred thinks he knows the magical secret to ending (or at least putting a dent in) Wikipedian "cluelessness" on this issue.

That's certainly how I read it - trying to do the whole Jonathon Swift thing. Of course, Wikipedians are probably more amenable to the idea of eating their own children than were the eighteenth century Irish.

What do you think?

The fact is that most Wikipedians do not have children, or partners, and most
people out there in the real world do.

Worse, or whatever.

Under normal Wikipedia policy, wouldn't one need a reliable source to the effect that a particular posture was "sexually attractive" (to whom?), rather than relying upon one's own subjective judgment?

Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to apply to Commons. There's not the slightest requirement to justify adding a category to a photo, and requests for deletions of categories are quite rare. Indeed, if Wikipedia policy applied you'd need to have evidence that a photo does indeed represent whomever or whatever it says it does. If I post a photo allegedly of say a junior French government minister on Commons, and it looks plausible, it's massively unlikely that anyone will query it or demand proof. Of course, if it is then used on the French Wikipedia, it may get queried there.

I imagine you have a very interesting bookmarks bar.

I might add, most pornography is misogynistic.

Did you grow up in a World According to Garp style household?

While I don't think I've done a representative survey with a large enough sample size to draw definitive conclusions, I would say that most mainstream porn aimed at heterosexual men--which I suspect is a large percentage of porn--is indeed misogynistic. That's not to say that porn is inherently misogynistic (a claim that I think would have better justified your "Garp" retort), but a higher percentage of it turns out that way.

Herostratus' essay was restored to project space by Jimbo. Cyclopia is distinguishing himself on the essay's talk page by arguing that it is culturally biased to assume that women in porn movies don't enjoy receiving facials.

He lost it a long time ago. Problem is, he knows just what kind of insane ideas to bring to WP,
so they'll get approved. Sick community.

Interesting. I take it you are homosexual?

Sylar,

Let us caution you, once and once only, that WR is not an online dating service.*

Jon

* Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'm wondering if Crossmr is a Korean demon … he tried to get Herostratus banned today, with spectacular lack of success.

Is there something wrong with it
> being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only
> one
> confused about this.
>
> MZMcBride

There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first
time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda.

Fred
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/064255.html

Wikimedia Foundation seems to be turning into another non-profit bent on social outreach. The internal structure appears to be mutating into something very corporate, from the constant direction of consultants/analysts to expansion into emerging markets. They all seem to resemble any other corporation trying to expand, overlooking that fact that the actual product is governed and maintained by an active community which is responsible for most of the content.

One look at the current staff page points to the flawed vision of the internal structure, with titles like chief talent and culture officer, which sounds more like a job from a futuristic science fiction or even a cult, a successful one of course. The fundraising part of the staff seems to be under the community department, communications seems to be under global development. There seems to be only one person in the finance and administration department.

Chief propaganda officer doesn't seem to be far behind, unless you prefer raconteur which is more or less the same title.

If people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather than creating drama about things they aren't.

Mr. Donovan seems to understand the situation better than most, I'd have to say, aside from the fact that the internal structure (and intent) was always very corporate.

Earlier in the thread, high-ranking WMF bete noir Michael Snow wrote this: