They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, "booth babes" and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than an outright attempt to titillate. Are random artistic images in Commons scope?
Of course, a lot of the creepier denizens of Commons probably can't appreciate that distinction. The reaction that EVula got is really disappointing. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Alison Cassidy <coot...@mac.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer > technology<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology> > (NSFW) even > exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely > encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with > sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only > tangential references to computer technology. > > I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of > SWE<http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org>. > Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like > this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example. > > -- Allie > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
