Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Thu 28/03/24 18:26:09 GMT |
Message # 22712.1.1.2 Subject: Re: I don't suppose you want to separate the two out on Wikipedia? Date: Mon 29/05/06 11:49:56 GMT Name: idlewild |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
A Wikipedia article should not contain original opinions but rather be a summary of other people's authorative work. So you don't need to be a practioner or have any personal experience of the subject matter, just the motivation and ability to do the research.
In this case, the research might not be quite as easy as for some other subjects; for example there is no mention of the history of wetlook (because it's difficult to get the information?). Perhaps the help of participants in this and other forums could be sought. My own contribution: http://www.thevalkyrie.com/stories/html/ursa/ursaobje.htm the earliest known mention of wetlook? (Scroll down to "semi-transparent gowns so popular in ancient Egypt".) |
In reply to Message (22712.1.1) I don't suppose you want to separate the two out on Wikipedia?
By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Sun 28/05/06 21:05:02 GMT Or maybe explain to me what the text on each page should say, if you don't know how to work with a wiki (they're fiddly bastards to understand) |
In reply to Message (22712.1) Re: "Wet clothing" or "wetlook" -- the difference?
By Jerney Verney - Sun 28/05/06 19:21:35 GMT Glad you mentioned that :-) I've always felt that there's a big difference between swimming (or getting wet) in clothes, and looking at other people getting (or being) wet. That's prolly one reason why the genre (I won't call it a fetish, because I don't believe it is only a fetish!) is so confused by the general public. It is clear from events at swimming pools and theme parks, that many more people enjoy getting wet themselves, than watching others getting wet from afar. Also the public don't regard the first as weird or kinky (unless the clothes become transparent or the intention is sexual), whereas the second is often regarded as odd by most people :-| This also leads to the well-known ''percentage of wetlookers equation''... Far more than ten thousand people enjoy getting wet in their clothes! More like twenty percent of the population I reckon have enjoyed it at least once in their lives, often as children, because most adults are so closed-minded, and worried about other people's opinion of them (so-called ''dignity'').
SW, FW, and BH :-) |
In reply to Message (22712) "Wet clothing" or "wetlook" -- the difference?
By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Sun 28/05/06 18:48:48 GMT Still thinking about this Wikipedia article, and trying to track down a good example of a wet clothing photograph.
I've been struck with a thought -- is there not a distinct difference between wet clothing (e.g. Nasse Klamotten, Wet Clothing Club Berlin, NJCO) and wetlook (e.g. modelled wetlook, candid wet pics)? Wetlook is all about how people other than oneself look, but when you swim in clothes for fun, that is wet clothing -- you're doing it for the experience, not the look.
As such, should these not be kept as separate articles in Wikipedia? And if so, do I now need a new second picture to illustrate the wetlook article? And of what?
And does anyone here feel qualified to write an article about wet clothing as an activity? I barely feel qualified to work on the wetlook article as I know so very little about wetlook really, but it's always the least qualified people who end up having to do it :P
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.021 seconds to generate ]