"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't mean we should."
For what reason, specifically? FMF On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
