|
Note: This interview officially began on September 2, 2014. It continued on September 4, 2014; September 8, 2014; and later on September 30, 2014 due to Cush getting delayed; my final response was on October 1, 2014.
How would you describe Seedfeeder's illustrations to someone who has never seen them before?
I would describe the images as graphic but educational...when used in an educational way at least.
What makes his work particularly compelling or appropriate for Wikipedia articles?
Surely, these images will upset a lot of people, and they commonly do upset some of our readers, but like I state on my user page, "Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy [a Wikipedia article] as much, or take the article as seriously, with [real-life images of sex acts]. To them, it is simply porn. So we might as well make it less pornographic to them; this approach [of using paintings or drawings] has been working well, as editors such as Herostratus can attest to, and I see no valid reason to disrupt that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS tell us what to do in the case of an image that is likely to be offensive, whether we should use that one or an 'equally suitable alternative.' WP:GRATUITOUS is the answer to 'prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense,' and it is quite valid; it exists partly for that reason."
The paintings or drawings are also simply porn to some of our readers, but less pornographic than a real-life image would be to them (or at least to a good number of them). Seedfeeder's images have been criticized, but they are an asset to our sexual articles.
You mention on your user page that you're particularly interested in creating/expanding sex-related articles. What drives that interest? Is Wikipedia a useful tool for sex education, in your estimation?
What drives me to expand, or possibly create, sex-related articles is the interest in informing people of these topics. Accurately informing them. It's like I state at the top of my talk page: "I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible." For further information, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2; that's a WP:Permalink of a WP:Sandbox, and it'll go live in several hours.
And as for the question of "Is Wikipedia a useful tool for sex education, in your estimation?" Yes, when the information is reported accurately, and especially when reported comprehensively in addition to accurately.
I'm also interested in Seedfeeder's images beyond their educational use. Would you agree that there's something aesthetically compelling about them (beyond simple pornography), and if so, what do you think that is?
I don't necessarily see what is aesthetically pleasing about them, except that some people find pornography aesthetically pleasing, or, in the case that his images are of white people, some people have a prejudice there and would prefer to look at white people. Despite the criticism Seedfeeder has received regarding alleged racism, he has drawn black people as well. The fact that his images look real enough might also factor into their being aesthetically pleasing.
You corresponded or worked with him at least a little bit in editing certain articles, right? What was he like to work with?
I only worked with him on this matter (an image for the Tribadism article), and working with him was fine. He was easy to work with.
Sorry for the late reply. And as for that signpost; it actually goes up tomorrow; see here.
What would you say to someone arguing that images like Seedfeeders are simply porn? They all show fit, young people, and some of the angles seem designed to accentuate the female body? Does an article like bukkake really need an image at all?
Well, like I stated at the Fellatio article talk page, "A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images." However, there are always going to be editors that insist on having an image to illustrate a sexual topic. For instance, this guy in the Slate article commenting on Wikipedia who stated, "I’m very excited of the possibility to show my penis everywhere in the world, everyone can see it. … My penis is the fourth when you search penis on google images."
And, like I told you, going with a drawing or a painting, or computer-generated image, of a sex act is usually less offensive to our readers than going with an image of a real-life sex act. Our readers are less inclined to call such images "porn" when they think of them as simply drawings, artistic paintings or as cartoons. And it's not just images of sex acts that our readers complain about. It's real-life images of anatomy, especially of female sexual anatomy (which indicates sexism). Take these complaints at the Vulva talk page, for example. If there were drawings (including diagrams) or paintings, or computer-generated images, of the vulva instead of real-life images of the vulva, I'm sure that there would be far less complaints at that talk page. But should we not show images of real-life vulvas to better educate people on this part of female anatomy because some people, especially men, find the images offensive and/or "nasty"? Some ask similarly regarding real-life images of sex acts -- to them, real-life images of sex acts are better simply because they are the real thing. But the difference is that the topic of sexual acts is a lot more taboo and vulgar than the topic of sexual anatomy, often anyway, and so the WP:Offensive material guideline applies even more seriously to images of sex acts than to images of sexual anatomy by themselves. To some people, it is all porn. To others, there are differences, including the fact that porn is meant to sexually arouse people. The sexual images at Wikipedia, I don't think are meant to sexually arouse anyone, except for in the case of exhibitionists, like the aforementioned penis guy, who intend for their images to sexually arouse. These images are meant to educate.
And as for Seedfeeder's alleged prejudice, I can't personally speak to that, since I don't personally know if his drawings are ever coming from a prejudiced point of view. I will state that society in general has a prejudice toward thinking of young people (teenagers and 20-somethings, and sometimes early 30-somethings) as sexually active and beautiful, and the older people and elderly as less sexual or as asexual, and less beautiful (especially in the case of women); this is perpetuated by society at large, and is addressed in our Sex therapy and Sexuality in older age articles. So if Seedfeeder does have a bias there, I don't think he's necessarily aware of it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg)
