JzG: Wikipedia Review superfan Options

[thekohser]

I'm not sure that we really need to have porn in any threads here.

The images I have posted here have been decidedly less revealing than what the "Bomis Babes" used to show on that famous website. And Jimbo has emphatically declared that even the Bomis images were not "porn". So, how are YOU defining porn? Women showing skin below their necks?

Dear Greg,

I agree with Diana Russell's definition of pornography. It's not the nudity,
it's the degradation.

Would it be possible, rather than including the pornography on the page,
to link to the pornography instead, with a warning that those of us with
fragile sensibilities should not click?

Thanks,
AB

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So, if you'll write up 1,000 words about why Guy Chapman was editing those particular articles while logged in only by IP addess, I would probably consent to having the images replaced with suitably-warned hyperlinks.

You have to admit, Carolina Ardohain is not representing degradation in her photographic modeling shoots, right? Are we just talking about Letha Weapons and the other "JzGGals"?

Greg

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm not sure that we really need to have porn in any threads here.

The images I have posted here have been decidedly less revealing than what the "Bomis Babes" used to show on that famous website. And Jimbo has emphatically declared that even the Bomis images were not "porn". So, how are YOU defining porn? Women showing skin below their necks?

Dear Greg,

I agree with Diana Russell's definition of pornography. It's not the nudity,
it's the degradation.

Would it be possible, rather than including the pornography on the page,
to link to the pornography instead, with a warning that those of us with
fragile sensibilities should not click?

Thanks,
AB

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So, if you'll write up 1,000 words about why Guy Chapman was editing those particular articles while logged in only by IP addess, I would probably consent to having the images replaced with suitably-warned hyperlinks.

You have to admit, Carolina Ardohain is not representing degradation in her photographic modeling shoots, right? Are we just talking about Letha Weapons and the other "JzGGals"?

Greg

It is like Kinky Friedman says: "Never say fuck in front of a C - H - I - L - D." This stuff is harder to get right than it first appears.

[Nathan]

Dear Greg,

I agree with Diana Russell's definition of pornography. It's not the nudity,
it's the degradation.

Would it be possible, rather than including the pornography on the page,
to link to the pornography instead, with a warning that those of us with
fragile sensibilities should not click?

Thanks,
AB

A sensible idea.

[Jonny Cache]

Could some mod please just move the pic parts to the tarpit, where there's an explicit warning on the door, so AB will shut the hecque up?

We all know that nothing above is porn in any post-Victorian sense of the word — there's more explicit stuff than that on the CBC for Pete's sake — not to mention vastly more degrading stuff on Wikipedia, and if AB doesn't quit going on and on about it, I'll personally start dragging some of that over here.

Jonny

[AB]

not to mention vastly more degrading stuff on Wikipedia

I never said there wasn't. I feel offended by the bondage articles on WP
that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual
bondage, among other things.

If you are trying to convince me that the WP community is utterly lacking
in ethics (which is not to say that all individual members are completely
lacking in ethics, as that would be whole-to-part fallacy), you don't need
to, I wholeheartedly agree.


This post has been edited by AB: Sun 21st October 2007, 5:55am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Perhaps we could all agree that the point about JzG's boob fixation has been made, and we may now resume discussing his activities at Wikipedia and/or his critique of the WR.

[Nathan]

Sounds sensible to me.

[guy]

not to mention vastly more degrading stuff on Wikipedia, and if AB doesn't quit going on and on about it, I'll personally start dragging some of that over here.

Elbow bondage has been deleted.

Sounds sensible to me.

OK

[the fieryangel]

not to mention vastly more degrading stuff on Wikipedia, and if AB doesn't quit going on and on about it, I'll personally start dragging some of that over here.

I think that the main thing that this points out is that the main problem with such content on WP is that one does not have a choice as to whether or not one wishes to view it. One happens upon an article and suddenly one has to deal with "Elbow bondage" and everything that represents, whether one wants to or not.

Recently, I was tricked into visiting a site called 2girls1cup which features graphic scatological content. I consider myself pretty open to all forms of sexuality, but I just don't get this type of behavior. However, as long as I don't have to actually see it, the idea wasn't a problem.

Being tricked into watching this film made me physically sick and very angry. I didn't need to see these images and once I had, I could not take them back. I still retch when I think about this. It brought home to me that some images that I find to be interesting or neutral might make others have the same sort of reaction that I had with this scat site.

So, the fact that WP is not censored means that suddenly you have to deal these things, and once you see them, you can't take them back. This is not necessarily a good thing.

For AB,

To understand exactly why this "big bust models" issue came up, JzG had been documented as having made the statement that there were no important female opera composers because there were none on his Ipod, which has been much discussed in feminist musicology circles as being sexist.

Greg made the discovery using Wikiscanner that JzG was editing lots of articles about "big bust" models and then contrasted them with the portraits of Dame Ethel Smyth :



and Judith Weir :



Two important female opera composers.

Suddenly, his POV bias becomes much more apparent....

So, it wasn't all about the gratuitous porn images....although part of it was.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sun 21st October 2007, 10:01am

[LessHorrid vanU]

Wasn't there some subtext that the type of preferred image was of itself an artificial construct, that these were representations of a physique not normally encountered in the natural world? I thought that this was an illustration of the dichotomy of arguing that there are no female composers of note (via a very subjective attempt of reasoning) and the apparent fondness for editing an extreme fantasy representation of the female form.

Perhaps it can be simply agreed that there are no silicone enhanced unfeasibly large breasted female composers of note...?

[the fieryangel]

Wasn't there some subtext that the type of preferred image was of itself an artificial construct, that these were representations of a physique not normally encountered in the natural world? I thought that this was an illustration of the dichotomy of arguing that there are no female composers of note (via a very subjective attempt of reasoning) and the apparent fondness for editing an extreme fantasy representation of the female form.

Perhaps it can be simply agreed that there are no silicone enhanced unfeasibly large breasted female composers of note...?

That remains to be proven. Would you like to make a scientific study of the question and report back to us?

(...this would be a plausible statement to make, but in the interests of scientific procedure...)

[LamontStormstar]

Now JzG has taken to calling for reverts to articles I've edited because he claims I'm a "meatpuppet of WordBomb".

I guess I've been downgraded from sockpuppet.

JzG dear, could you inform Gerard of my demotion? My WP page isn't accurately reflecting the current views of hysterical WP liars who have fallen off the med wagon. I hate when that happens.

Great point.

I'm not sure that we really need to have porn in any threads here.

The images I have posted here have been decidedly less revealing than what the "Bomis Babes" used to show on that famous website. And Jimbo has emphatically declared that even the Bomis images were not "porn". So, how are YOU defining porn? Women showing skin below their necks?

Dear Greg,

I agree with Diana Russell's definition of pornography. It's not the nudity,
it's the degradation.

Would it be possible, rather than including the pornography on the page,
to link to the pornography instead, with a warning that those of us with
fragile sensibilities should not click?

Thanks,
AB

The article says porn is about being degrading and not erotica, which is non-degrading sex.

Well people can be degraded without it being sexual. A lot of people work at jobs that are degrading.

The article also claimed that the more fetish type sex acts are degrading when some people simply like that stuff including being submissives.

There are dramas on TV about people in bad relationships and even if there's no sex, the relationship can be degrading.

Do the bomis babes if they're not fully nude but just in bikinis, would they really be degraded or would they think "this is less degrading than if I had to work at McDonalds and I don't mind" ?

not to mention vastly more degrading stuff on Wikipedia

I never said there wasn't. I feel offended by the bondage articles on WP
that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual
bondage, among other things.

It would be nice if Taxwoman would come by and explain the bondage articles.

Could some mod please just move the pic parts to the tarpit

I guess it was here, maybe somewhere else, where someone hotlinked a topless pic of two women. One covered her breasts with her hair and the other with her hands, while technically topless, the FCC usually counts it as not completely topless as the own body covered it up.

I'm glad it wasn't another topless pic of guys.

Though... I look it and I expected the two women to kiss. Dunno. It just seemed expected... somehow.

Yeah, the nudes were probably quite beyond the norms of this forum. I don't know what the rules are on nudes are, though.


This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sun 21st October 2007, 1:18pm

[Jonny Cache]

not to mention vastly more degrading stuff on Wikipedia

I never said there wasn't. I feel offended by the bondage articles on WP that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual bondage, among other things.

If you are trying to convince me that the WP community is utterly lacking in ethics (which is not to say that all individual members are completely lacking in ethics, as that would be whole-to-part fallacy), you don't need to, I wholeheartedly agree.

Then I respectfully — get it while it's hot, supplies limited — suggest that you address yourself to the task that this Forum was instituted to address, and quit wasting mass quantities of time on purely personal pet peeves.

If you have no awareness what that task is, then ask around and we'll tell ya.

By the way —

Mob's Rule

The ethics of a mob frequently underwhelms the ethics of every one of its mobbers.

Jonny

[thekohser]

Would everyone be satisfied with the posts, if they were revised to this tune of filtration?

Does Letha's "Yankee Doodle" outfit cover her enough, or should we run that through pixelation, too?

If people like the idea of pixelating the original portfolio of Guy's Galz, I will take the 10 minutes to modify those posts, too.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 21st October 2007, 5:26pm

[Somey]

Bah. There's a point where this sort of thing becomes prudish, or even silly. Nobody is going to show up here on WR looking for sexual gratification, or news on who the latest hot porn stars are... that's ridiculous. I'm perfectly happy with trying to account for AB's moral and/or behavioral sensibilities, some of which I even share, but not to the point where we're diluting the message or failing to show people the truth when it's right there in front of us.

The problem for me is that I'm no psychiatrist, and while I'm very sensitive to the kind of psychological damage that sites like Wikipedia can produce, it's irresponsible of me to make unofficial "diagnoses" of people like Guy Chapman. To some extent, such things may even be actionable. But at this point, it isn't enough to simply say he's a "jerk," and/or that he's an arrogant, dishonest, sexist hypocrite... Someone has to point out that this man is clearly depressed, and getting worse, almost by the day. The blame-shifting, the hyperbolic ranting, the refusal to recognize what's really happening around him, and yes, the porn - all of these things are symptoms of a much larger problem.

All the signs are there, and have been there all along, including the stuff he was posting to WikiEN-L about "wikistress" and "admin burnout" during the MONGO case earlier this year... He was almost certainly seeing that in himself, and it was clear he'd given the problem a lot of thought - because he knew it applied to him too. Starting his own private wiki was another clear sign - an attempt to wean himself off of the stressful aspects of WP without losing the power, and still keeping the day-to-day mechanics of editing and writing in place.

Getting totally away from Wikipedia is obviously the best thing for him, and the fact that he managed to get himself desysopped shows that he's not so far gone that he can't recognize it and act on it, at least. But it's a powerful addiction, and he's not going to break it if people continue to help him feed it. What's more, after a few weeks off he might now feel as though he's had his "break" and he can handle it again now. But it's WAY too soon, and anyone looking at the situation objectively should know that.

As usual, they're not doing their own people any favors.

[alienus]

I'm considerably less patient than you are with regard to AB's call for censorship, but the rest of your note does raise a valuable point: to what extent does WP appeal to the mentally ill more so than to the general public?

Al

[AB]

Bah. There's a point where this sort of thing becomes prudish, or even silly. Nobody is going to show up here on WR looking for sexual gratification, or news on who the latest hot porn stars are... that's ridiculous. I'm perfectly happy with trying to account for AB's moral and/or behavioral sensibilities, some of which I even share, but not to the point where we're diluting the message or failing to show people the truth when it's right there in front of us.

Actually, it's okay now. I just found the 'Do you wish to view images
in posts, such as smilies and posted images?' option and set it to 'No'.
All better now, for me at least. : ) Others, particularly those without
accounts, may still be upset, maybe, possibly, I don't know.

P.S. Alienus, since you are apparently so opposed to censorship, I
assume you will not mind if I briefly explain why I feel degraded by
the photo of Ms. LW. Firstly, the large breast implants encourage
women undergoing dangerous surgery to sexually please men.
(Assuming they are silicone... though at that size, saline could be
dangerous too.) Secondly, I feel her posture depicts her more as a
sex object than as the complete human being she really is. The photo
of Ms. CA, however, is probably closer to erotica than porn, as it
respects its subject. However, the number of pornographic and erotic
photos of unusually thin women is very disproportionate to the
population bell curve, and hence encourage the idea that women
should starve themselves to please men. Also, the disproportionate
number of photos of nude women as compared to nude men is rather
sexist. The picture of Ms. CA would hence be better if it included
both her and a nude male, portrayed as equals. Note that by equal,
I do not mean the same (e.g. same amount of muscle, same height,
both as asexual as possible), as men and women are certainly
different; rather, I mean equal in the sense that neither is portrayed as
'better', e.g. by one being in a dominant role.


This post has been edited by AB: Mon 22nd October 2007, 1:10am

[tarantino]

Getting totally away from Wikipedia is obviously the best thing for him, and the fact that he managed to get himself desysopped shows that he's not so far gone that he can't recognize it and act on it, at least. But it's a powerful addiction, and he's not going to break it if people continue to help him feed it. What's more, after a few weeks off he might now feel as though he's had his "break" and he can handle it again now. But it's WAY too soon, and anyone looking at the situation objectively should know that.

As usual, they're not doing their own people any favors.

JzG's been re-sysopped.

[the fieryangel]

Getting totally away from Wikipedia is obviously the best thing for him, and the fact that he managed to get himself desysopped shows that he's not so far gone that he can't recognize it and act on it, at least. But it's a powerful addiction, and he's not going to break it if people continue to help him feed it. What's more, after a few weeks off he might now feel as though he's had his "break" and he can handle it again now. But it's WAY too soon, and anyone looking at the situation objectively should know that.

As usual, they're not doing their own people any favors.

JzG's been re-sysopped.

Does this surprise anyone? No! He's addicted! He
can't go away!

Anyway, JzG is going to Malta for a "conference"...

Some useful information for his visit :

Although topless bathing is illegal in Malta, topless bathing is common place on most beaches and has become more acceptable. There are no official nudist beaches.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sun 21st October 2007, 9:29pm

[Nathan]

Actually, it's okay now. I just found the 'Do you wish to view images
in posts, such as smilies and posted images?' option and set it to 'No'.
All better now, for me at least. : ) Others, particularly those without
accounts, may still be upset, maybe, possibly, I don't know.

P.S. Alienus, since you are apparently so opposed to censorship, I
assume you will not mind if I briefly explain why I feel degraded by
the photo of Ms. LW. Firstly, the large breast implants encourage
women undergoing dangerous surgery to sexually please men.
(Assuming they are silicone... though at that size, saline could be
dangerous too.) Secondly, I feel her posture depicts her more as a
sex object than as the complete human being she really is. The photo
of Ms. CA, however, is probably closer to erotica than porn, as it
respects its subject. However, the number of pornographic and erotic
photos of unusually thin women is very disproportionate to the
population bell curve, and hence encourage the idea that women
should starve themselves to please men. Also, the disproportionate
number of photos of nude women as compared to nude men is rather
sexist. The picture of Ms. CA would hence be better if it included
both her and a nude male, portrayed as equals.

I agree with that line of reasoning - there are completely unrealistic expectations on either gender to look a certain way. Some of us (such as myself) can tune it out better than others. I tend to not care what anyone else thinks in spite. :-)

Since LW's breasts are so freakishly large, I'm surprised she doesn't have back problems, but that's neither here nor there.

- N.