Video Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan
Happy belated birthday!
Wikipe-tan just turned 10! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Maps Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan
Ironic, yes?
I wonder how many women voted for this mascot. As Wikipedia currently has only 17% of its articles about women, I find it amusing that a cutesy subservient female was considered by many to represent the whole of Wikipedia. Maybe someone can depict her with a lab coat and glasses? LovelyLillith (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe some wikiprojects depict her in various occupations. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't find it strange here as a majority of girls use cuteness to their advantage. Its an alluring welcoming feeling I get from Wikipe-tan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- That sums up the whole problem. Cutesy females are not taken seriously in many aspects, and there is some undercurrent or expectation of using that cuteness to be manipulative. There is also the maid fetish role: "Maid cafés were originally designed primarily to cater to the fantasies of male otaku, fans of anime, manga, and video games." Wikipedia is supposed to be a respectable, even scholarly resource for the growth of knowledge, not just a come-hither fantasy of subservience. I know I'm literally in the minority here as Wikipedia is primarily edited by males, but I thought I would point out the potential objectification and offensiveness that this figure could represent to women in a male-dominated environment that is trying to have less gender bias. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- You cant make everyone in the world happy, maybe Wikipe-tan should have been brown skinned? The best part of a mascot is that her image can be used in different ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Eh eh, I very clearly see Lillith's point about her being overly-feminine(?). I scrolled through the on-wiki list of Wikipes and the only I thought that made her look bad was the "Christian" one where she is wearing some Quaker homespuns or something. Has anyone solicited Wikiproject Women (which is probably half male though, but they might be more openminded)? L3X1 (distænt write) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well she isn't going to become a mascot anytime soon so Wiki-projects can do what they like with the images created in her likeness. If you want to create a "tomboy" style Wikipe-tan then go for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with females being feminine. What I question is the appropriateness of using a mascot that looks more like a known sexual fetish than one that looks like a studious authority. It's a bit akin to having a male model with a banana hammock that says "Wikipedia" on it be the mascot. Both emphasize titillation over intellectual substance. I'm just trying to point out that we could do better. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominate the image for deletion. The weebs that write the articles think this is fine. I like Wikipe-tan and add her image to talk pages as part of WP:BIRTHDAY. Generally, the images of her are not sexualized in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Which image exactly? Also which articles are you talking about? I find your comment highly offensive if you are referring to fellow editors here on Wikipedia as that would go against WP:AGF and WP:NPA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominate the image for deletion. The weebs that write the articles think this is fine. I like Wikipe-tan and add her image to talk pages as part of WP:BIRTHDAY. Generally, the images of her are not sexualized in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with females being feminine. What I question is the appropriateness of using a mascot that looks more like a known sexual fetish than one that looks like a studious authority. It's a bit akin to having a male model with a banana hammock that says "Wikipedia" on it be the mascot. Both emphasize titillation over intellectual substance. I'm just trying to point out that we could do better. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well she isn't going to become a mascot anytime soon so Wiki-projects can do what they like with the images created in her likeness. If you want to create a "tomboy" style Wikipe-tan then go for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Eh eh, I very clearly see Lillith's point about her being overly-feminine(?). I scrolled through the on-wiki list of Wikipes and the only I thought that made her look bad was the "Christian" one where she is wearing some Quaker homespuns or something. Has anyone solicited Wikiproject Women (which is probably half male though, but they might be more openminded)? L3X1 (distænt write) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- You cant make everyone in the world happy, maybe Wikipe-tan should have been brown skinned? The best part of a mascot is that her image can be used in different ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- That sums up the whole problem. Cutesy females are not taken seriously in many aspects, and there is some undercurrent or expectation of using that cuteness to be manipulative. There is also the maid fetish role: "Maid cafés were originally designed primarily to cater to the fantasies of male otaku, fans of anime, manga, and video games." Wikipedia is supposed to be a respectable, even scholarly resource for the growth of knowledge, not just a come-hither fantasy of subservience. I know I'm literally in the minority here as Wikipedia is primarily edited by males, but I thought I would point out the potential objectification and offensiveness that this figure could represent to women in a male-dominated environment that is trying to have less gender bias. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, everyone. Let's just end this here before it descends into mudslinging. I've put forward my point about Wikipe-tan having been voted on by mostly males. Do I want her gone? No, I'd just prefer that she wasn't in a maid outfit or bikini (as Knowledgekid pointed out to me, her image is actually being used to demonstrate fan service aka "gratuitous titillation"...my whole argument exactly) to represent Wikipedia - something representing brains or education over servitude or lust would be better. As it doesn't appear that many women have spoken about this character, I thought I'd give my two cents worth as to how she could be viewed by us. Does she annoy female editors? You won't know til you ask more of us. Does her existence demonstrate the range of difference in editor attitudes toward what women represent? Certainly. Am I making a blanket statement about all male editors (or females, for that matter)? Of course not. I bring all of this up in the spirit of making Wikipedia more inviting to the women who are already here, as well as trying to shed light on perspectives that may not have been considered. Some may agree with me, some won't. Cheers. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- As a point of information, is that a maid uniform? I've honestly never been sure. I've wondered if it might be a Japanese school uniform (or something). --Pi zero (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments