On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture? > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would > > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always > > considered > > that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we remaining > > culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical > events, > > places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people, their > > habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant. > Hosting > > a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is borderline > > voyeurism. > > > > If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all. > > > > -Chad > Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said: just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should. Quality over quantity. -Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
