This is the image.
This is the featured picture discussion.

First, how do we know she's a prostitute? Could be a stripper waiting for a ride. Or could just be a chick with really poor taste in shoes.

Second, how is this image featured quality? It's high res and the photographer managed to center her, but what other than that is impressive? Absolutely nothing.

I rather like her shoes.

You mean nothing, now that any female can hang out on a street alone in a Latin-American country, in short-shorts and silver 4-inch stilettos, without actually being a streetwalker? (Merely looking like one, which is the idea; illusion complete... ) Yeah you're probably right.

If she were dressed up as a clown, the discussion would be: "Well how do you know she really IS a clown, and not just dressed up for Halloween?"

To test a theory, one would have to do an independent experiment, such as sending Kato down to solicit the model for the purported services to see how she responds.

So you can say, without any doubt whatsoever, that it is impossible that she is a stripper waiting for a ride?

A stripper with only one pair of shoes to her name, but otherwise no problem changing to street clothes? Oh, wait-- I'm assuming she didn't leave her stripper outfit with the six-inch heels at the club, and change to MORE comfortable walking-shoes.

In any case, she must be waiting for a ride, all right: I don't think she's waiting for her 10 K race runner-number bib.

It may be that the photographer is privy to info not given. Otherwise I'd be okay with a change in caption to: Unidentified Woman of Unidentified Means, Wearing Commonly-Accepted Streetwalker's Uniform, For Unknown Reasons.

Or she could be an admin?

At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate here, I'd have to disagree - what's impressive is that a Wikipedia photographer actually managed to take and upload a non-pornographic photograph of someone in a compromising pose without showing the person's face directly, and yet still get the general point of a "challenging" subject across in such a way that the related article might be deemed "effectively illustrated."

I'd say it's possible to get to the point of being too concerned with impropriety in WP articles - to the point where people feel forced to illustrate them in ways that are, well, stupid. A good example is the Profanity (T-H-L-K-D) article, currently illustrated by this laughably amateurish image. One could easily be excused for thinking that the person who uploaded this was a would-be Japanese cartoonist whose earlier attempt to "get something on" to WP, the nearly-identical (and equally pathetic) Paradox of Zombie Twins image, was most likely meant to accompany an article that was quickly deleted on "notability" grounds, and the "Profanity" image was just a way to salvage what the person must have thought was a brilliant artistic statement of some kind. In fact, the uploader was an established, well-respected Wikipedian attempting to illustrate an article on the "Philosophical zombie," except that he never actually tried to add it to the article in question, apparently. Yikes!

As much as I dislike Wikipedia in general, as long as they're going to be at the top of Google searches, it's probably a good thing that some of them are trying to provide decent-looking illustrations, Zombie Twins aside.

Not enough varicose vein to be an admin.

On the other hand, those legs don't really look like strippers' legs to me. Though my experience with personal close range observation of real professional strippers is sadly limited (I hate cigarette smoke and noise). I'm sure the ones on various media represent a better assthetic aesthetic class.

There's an exotic dance joint a few miles from where I work, with this sign: "Nude review: all pretty girl and one ugly one." Grammar and all. I've been powerfully tempted to waste time seeing for myself, as I'm sure many others have also. Perhaps a letter to management is in order. No, there are TWO ugly ones!

Milton

Funnily enough this links up with another controversy about pictures on Commons. There is no way of authenticating these pictures. In fact, how do we know that dcoetzee hasn't scrambled the names of all those copyvio images just for fun? Whatever happened to verifiability and reliable sourcing?

I take exception to this comment. I have no varicose veins!

He was talking about regular women admins. Lara, you are a goddess.




Well, you do have garish taste.

More like seven inches......

Obviously you people have never been to Tijuana.
Trust me, she's a whore.

You got to understand guys ... "Its not for us, its for them ...

Its for that poor starving young girl in Africa who is going to change the world once she gets Pee-dia access". â„¢

Trust me, she's really needs to know what a Tijuana whore looks like.

People ... if I ever start sounding off like Jimbo Wales, for God's sake will you just shoot me, will you!?!

Its another white man ... supported by other another immature white men ... exploiting a marginalized non-white woman, just like that picture of the young girl urinating in the street that WE took off the Pee-dia a few weeks ago.

Besides which ... she has cellulite. So my guess she would never have gotten hard drive space on Jimbo's old server at Bomis.

Obviously the Pee-dia's communal moral and aesthetic standards are lower!

Have we got a WP:Category for "pictures of whores" yet, or do I need to run up a satyrical sub-category list?

You pig. A real man likes a little cushion for his pushin'.

In any case, the Wikipedia article on cellulite offers treatment advice for our afflicted heroine.... "Wearing thongs, boyshorts, or nothing and sleeping naked can reduce the impact underwear plays on cellulite's development."

okay, then......

Probably you get some exercise. But in my imagination, people like KillerC and ElinorD are born trellises for them. Pergollas, I say.

Hubba-hubba-hubba ... its the Dimples of Venus show!

Wikipedian Foobaz (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been busy "serving the community" ... not to say the starving Africans the Wikipedia is really for ... by scalping Flickr.com for images uploaded by a perv called tata_aka_T who seems to have an eye ... or rather a camera help down below hip height ... for "upskirt" young girls asses, stockings and suspenders, and school girls in public places.

See; his Shibuya set. I am no expert in this field but I'd say ... "not a strip of orange peel to be seen anywhere".

Ah ... for the high ethics and lofty aspirations of Jimbo Wales's Wacky Pee-dia contributors.

It is an extremely competent photograph, and given the camera specs on the file and from viewing it in detail (love the remnants of red paint on both hydrant and curb) not manipulated too much... but it is a dreary image. Another example of a untidy street, with litter and broken wall tiles, and a figure in nondescript clothing facing away from us. Where, as one of the respondents asked, is the "Wow factor". Ask yourself this, if it didn't have the word prostitute in it would it have garnered much attention? If it was entitled, "Denizen of street in Tijuana, Mexico" I doubt if it would have been considered. In fact, I think it is simply a good image that would illustrate an article upon prostitution very nicely, as it is inoffensive in its depiction of street walkers, but a featured photo? I should think there are many dozens of better photographs of, for instance, flowers in bloom or clouds and landscapes, and all more relevant to an encyclopedia.

Tight elastic around the hips causes cellulite? I had no idea. I've made good undergarment choices without this information. Lucky me.

OMG, that image is horrid. Jesus. I need to replace that. Strike that. It's used in the article for cellulite. I thought it was used to illustrate back dimples.

Though the "cellulite" image is called Dimples of Venus for the big sacral dimples it also shows (unrelated), they used a much more attractive woman in the Dimples of Venus wiki. I think this OTHER cellulite one should ALSO go in the Dimples article as a neutral counterbalancing image for the blatant POV pushing statement that these dimples are "sexually desirable features" in-and-of themselves. I think somebody is looking at the rest of the package and being fooled by the dimples. If you see these things in isolation, or on a woman such as in the previous cellulite illustration, it becomes obvious that they aren't anything particularly special. Zero points.

If ya know what I'm sayin.


Flowers in bloom?

http://trujillo.blogspot.com/2006/07/tijua...iudad-real.html




"La flor de la maquila" son especialmente horribles.

I, too, have been in Tijauna.

Er, alright then; "Flowers in full bloom". Pictures of flowers with petals closed or half open are simply not as good. (All flowers are plants, but not all plants are flowers - even those that have flowers, which are... all of them, almost.)

More bounce for ounce on that one, eh?

Or less, depending. No pun intended....

perhaps Tomascastelazo knows the culture of the area very well... perhaps Tomascastelazo knows her quite well... or perhaps Tomascastelazo is just making an assumption based on Tomascastelazo's own preconceived notions and biases