Login | Register For Free | Help	Search this list this category for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery   Index | Next | Previous | View Flat

fredbaud at fairpoint May 14, 2009, 4:46 AM Views: 1242 Permalink Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery > This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of > sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than > any drawing could be. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium of knowledge to the world. I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery, we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia. I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra. Fred Bauder _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Subject User Time Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery fredbaud at fairpoint May 14, 2009, 4:46 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery oscar at wikimedia May 14, 2009, 4:56 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery fredbaud at fairpoint May 14, 2009, 5:06 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery oldakquill at gmail May 14, 2009, 6:09 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery cimonavaro at gmail May 14, 2009, 6:54 AM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery gerard.meijssen at gmail May 14, 2009, 6:58 AM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery fredbaud at fairpoint May 14, 2009, 7:11 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery cunctator at gmail May 14, 2009, 7:04 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery cimonavaro at gmail May 14, 2009, 7:05 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 7:13 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery fredbaud at fairpoint May 14, 2009, 7:20 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery fredbaud at fairpoint May 14, 2009, 7:24 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery rarohde at gmail May 14, 2009, 7:28 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 7:31 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 7:33 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery fordmadoxfraud at gmail May 14, 2009, 7:38 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery geo.plrd at yahoo May 14, 2009, 8:21 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery brion at wikimedia May 14, 2009, 10:29 AM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery dgoodmanny at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:03 AM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:43 AM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery rarohde at gmail May 14, 2009, 1:29 PM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery mikelifeguard at fastmail May 14, 2009, 4:14 PM             Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery brion at wikimedia May 15, 2009, 12:11 PM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thepmaccount at gmail May 14, 2009, 8:22 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery maxh at sdf May 14, 2009, 11:09 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery fredbaud at fairpoint May 14, 2009, 11:45 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:50 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery dgerard at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:50 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery dgerard at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:52 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery dgerard at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:53 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery dgerard at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:56 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery innocentkiller at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:58 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 12:05 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery innocentkiller at gmail May 14, 2009, 12:10 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery geniice at gmail May 14, 2009, 1:27 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery brion at wikimedia May 14, 2009, 1:28 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery cunctator at gmail May 14, 2009, 1:36 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail May 14, 2009, 1:44 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery dgerard at gmail May 14, 2009, 1:50 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery innocentkiller at gmail May 14, 2009, 2:04 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 2:10 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail May 14, 2009, 2:18 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery birgitte_sb at yahoo May 14, 2009, 2:23 PM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery innocentkiller at gmail May 14, 2009, 2:32 PM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery Simetrical+wikilist at gmail May 14, 2009, 2:59 PM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery george.herbert at gmail May 14, 2009, 3:00 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery thomas.dalton at gmail May 14, 2009, 2:57 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery carnildo at gmail May 14, 2009, 3:13 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail May 14, 2009, 3:17 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery dgerard at gmail May 14, 2009, 3:37 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery me at marcusbuck May 14, 2009, 4:03 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery mikelifeguard at fastmail May 14, 2009, 4:05 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery mikelifeguard at fastmail May 14, 2009, 4:08 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery smolensk at eunet May 14, 2009, 11:30 PM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery cimonavaro at gmail May 14, 2009, 11:42 PM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery smolensk at eunet May 15, 2009, 12:01 AM             Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery email at mikepeel May 15, 2009, 12:15 AM                 Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery smolensk at eunet May 15, 2009, 12:36 AM                     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery email at mikepeel May 15, 2009, 12:43 AM                         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery smolensk at eunet May 15, 2009, 1:23 AM                             Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery jayvdb at gmail May 15, 2009, 1:46 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery cimonavaro at gmail May 15, 2009, 12:53 AM         Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery saintonge at telus May 15, 2009, 8:59 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery pjacobi.de at googlemail May 15, 2009, 2:23 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery smolensk at eunet May 15, 2009, 3:34 AM     Re: Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery birgitte_sb at yahoo May 15, 2009, 6:33 AM

Index | Next | Previous | View Flat   Wikipedia     Foundation     Wikitech     WikiMania     Mediawiki     Mediawiki-announce     Mediawiki-CVS

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com
 

Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.