FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Wikipe-tan -
This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
So, if anyone's interested, the issue of the Japanese loli mascot has come up again. Started off with an MfD on a joke-ish "think of the children" page; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! (T-H-L-K-D), spilled into ANI, attempts to remove its usage from everywhere, etc...
This has been discussed a lot recently, especially in connection with the sexism issue, but if you want to know what it's really about, you can think of it as the Wikipediot analogue of Joe Camel.
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 12:18am)
This has been discussed a lot recently, especially in connection with the sexism issue, but if you want to know what it's really about, you can think of it as the Wikipediot analogue of Joe Camel.
I just love this kind of crap. Better than TV. Good luck convincing the basement dwellers, Tarc......
QUOTE
* Delete - The Wikipe-tan concept itself is just a product of undersexed basement-dwellers. Whether the page version is the slutty one or the sanitized one, it just has no relevance or purpose in regards to the project. I like smut as much as the next guy, or girl, but this whole thing is just retarded. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for attacking wikipedia's mascot and those who support it, I find what you type offensive and by your reasoning it sounds like you are against having wikipe-tan on wikipedia nevermind just this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Heh, this sexualized, pre-pubescent anime tartlet is most certainly not the Wikipedia mascot, despite what some may have tried many years ago. And yes, I oppose the usage of this...thing anywhere. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not you accept it, she's still an unoffiical mascot and has been acknowledged as such.陣内Jinnai 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, that's the key here; unofficial. The point is that this thing is recognized/utilized by, at best, a tiny subset of Wikipdia users. You act like it is some universally-recognized Mickey Mouse-like character, worldly synonymous with the Wikipedia. Trust me bro, it ain't. About the only non-Wikipedia mention I have ever seen of this thing is the Encyclopedia Dramatica satirization. And if you have never been there or seen it, trust me; you Wikipe-tan otaku are not being portrayed in a favorable light. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan lists a few more places than you know. I'm sure there are more. Just because you haven't personally seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 陣内Jinnai 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed wikipe-tan is featured in templates, official guideline pages, and other areas of wiki, she has become part of wikipedia over the years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You two can keep the red herrings flying away and missing the point if you wish. Keep your little Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan page and WikiProject figureheads for now...those can be the subject of another discussion if someone wishes; but THIS particular Think of... article is just over the top and does not belong in the main Wikipedia: space. It's a dumb in-joke for a select few fanboys, a riff of the old think of the children line. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It won't, and it's set to 'Friends-only' (that's my Facebook page link). I don't think Mark Zuckerberg lets you retro-public a thread. I tried to but I can't (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) but feel free to repost bits out of it here, tho' ...
It won't, and it's set to 'Friends-only' (that's my Facebook page link). I don't think Mark Zuckerberg lets you retro-public a thread. I tried to but I can't (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) but feel free to repost bits out of it here, tho' ...
This is my favorite part of that discussion :
QUOTE
# drawings of "Wikipe-tan" on Commons, which managed to survive a deletion request until Jimbo stepped in and deleted it himself. (A sort of harbinger to the later porn wars on Commons.) One of the most enthusiastic "keep" voters there was an admin on enwiki who was later banned for pro-pedophilia sockpuppetry, as I recall. February 15 at 6:15am · LikeUnlike # Jonny Cache Citation Needed February 15 at 6:17am · LikeUnlike # Barry Kort Citation, hell.
They need a Summons.
I was gonna suggest a Good Spanking, too, but they'd probably get all excited at that prospect. February 15 at 6:24am · Like
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 25th February 2011, 1:26am)
I just love this kind of crap. Better than TV. Good luck convincing the basement dwellers, Tarc......
There are a few that sure do have their hackles up over this. They're having a discussion over at the anime-manga project page about what to do, and one of the possibilities gaining traction is to crate a male -tan counterpart. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
There's a few different issues in all this that have unfortunately gotten all mixed in with each other. Wikipe-tan in project space and Wikipe-tan in article-space. The former should be a no-brainer, esp the "think of..." riff.
It's a funny position to be in since I actually happen to like a great deal of anime.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 25th February 2011, 1:26am)
I just love this kind of crap. Better than TV. Good luck convincing the basement dwellers, Tarc ……
There are a few that sure do have their hackles up over this. They're having a discussion over at the anime-manga project page about what to do, and one of the possibilities gaining traction is to crate a male -tan counterpart. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
There's a few different issues in all this that have unfortunately gotten all mixed in with each other. Wikipe-tan in project space and Wikipe-tan in article-space. The former should be a no-brainer, esp the "think of…" riff.
It's a funny position to be in since I actually happen to like a great deal of anime.
Which part is in the Non-501(â€câ€)(â€3â€) Adult Educational Public Charity space?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 25th February 2011, 6:56am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 25th February 2011, 1:26am)
I just love this kind of crap. Better than TV. Good luck convincing the basement dwellers, Tarc......
There are a few that sure do have their hackles up over this. They're having a discussion over at the anime-manga project page about what to do, and one of the possibilities gaining traction is to crate a male -tan counterpart. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
There's a few different issues in all this that have unfortunately gotten all mixed in with each other. Wikipe-tan in project space and Wikipe-tan in article-space. The former should be a no-brainer, esp the "think of..." riff.
It's a funny position to be in since I actually happen to like a great deal of anime.
Perhaps we should at some point compare Wikipedia to Death Note.
I can hardly do much better on this issue than quoting these words of wisdom from Jonny Cache:
QUOTE
The issue for me is not censorship, or else I'd personally be choosing to err on the side of the ACLU if I had to err at all. The issues are things like Hostile Work Environment, Child Labor, Truth In Advertising, and the Definition of an Encyclopedia. I believe in the maximum rational freedom of artistic expression and scientific inquiry. That means we have to tolerate all sorts of crap in the world, but it doesn't mean you can have your favorite e-rotica as your screen-saver at work, it doesn't mean you can experiment on undergraduates without going through proper channels, and it doesn't mean you can e-tice children “volunteers†to work into the early AM with who knows, or who cares, what kinds of adult “volunteers†on your tax-advantaged “charity†project for free.
— Jonny Cache • February 15 (9:54 am)
Wikipe-tan is WP:Joe Camel. It has to do with grooming youngsters to Wikipedia Kultur. It's a little bit of sexism but a whole lot of child endangerment. Responsible adults understand that. Wikipediots do not.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined:
Member No.: 15,107
QUOTE
Most of our active editors are grown-ups who (as far as I know) don't get a kick out of pre-pubescent cartoon fetishes.
It's a possile reason why the Wikipede (which is the actual official mascot for wikipedia as voted in 2006) isn't considered at all by most wikipediots. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipede
Japan takes things from the Western way of life and turbocharges them. In 1543 the first European firearms were introduced to a small japanese island, and a year later the skilled swordsmiths managed to replicate the guns, making them even better, and creating new styles of advanced warfare.
In 2000 and beyond they have cities bigger than some on the american counterparts, developing a rich culture with advanced technology, and yet they sell used schoolgirl panties through vending machines, and have inserted weird concepts in everyday comics and even normal objects.
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th February 2011, 11:54pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 12:18am)
This has been discussed a lot recently, especially in connection with the sexism issue, but if you want to know what it's really about, you can think of it as the Wikipediot analogue of Joe Camel.
THAT's what I was looking for. There are some artists doing Wikipe-tan porn, but they usually post on sites that charge for admission. Probably because they are embarrassing to, yet often used for masturbation purposes by, WP fanboiz.
Someday, someone will write a big fat textbook about the phenomenon of "Booru" imageboard sites. Or, more likely, a long, incoherent Wikipedia article.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
QUOTE
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.jpg Image isn't the best of quality and is of little educational value. In addition it depicts a pre-teen girl in swimwear, a form that is not usually acceptable. I appreciate we have a policy of "not censored" but this image is not used in any educational context or to demonstrate any particular style of image. In addition within Wikimedia it appears only to be used within project namespace in association with Wikipe-tan pages ErrantX (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
* Delete. Tasteless and useless, unusable for any legitimate "mascot"-style use, and clearly no educational value. Outside project scope. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Oddly, this deletion nomination is by the same person who just before said this at ANI:
QUOTE
Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant (chat!) 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
Be it furries, otherkin, soulbonders, or lolicon-lovers, these types sure do get their collective dicks in a pickle when someone treads on their holy ground.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
I mean, it's still degrees of freakiness (no offense (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)), but simply "dressing up as" vs. "Holy Shit I am the Living Reincarnation of..." is leagues apart, yea.
Anyways, barring a supremely ballsy admin ) or an Office Action, it appears that the main -tan page there is going to stick. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
Once I strike someone over the head with a mallet, I am not likely to be surprised if they should hit me back with a stick. Especially if they initially had a sign on them that reads, "Do not physically strike me with any objects," but my sign says, "It is permissible to hit me with a stick, but please attribute your blow in writing before striking me."
Problem is you don't have copyright on any of that.
QUOTE
(b London, May 1617; d London, July 1694). English painter. He was the son of James Wright, a tailor, and from 1636 to 1641 was apprenticed to the Edinburgh portrait painter George Jamesone. In the early 1640s he left Scotland for Rome, where he painted his earliest known portrait, Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (Tottenham House, Wilts, Marquess of Ailesbury priv. col.).
Born in May 1617, he was the son of a tailor names James Wright. Between 1636 and 1641 John Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone an Edinburgh portrait painter. He travelled from Scotland to Rome in the 1640s, and there he produced his earliest known portrait: Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (currently in Marquess of Ailesbury's private collection in Tottenham House).[1]
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 24th March 2011, 7:33pm)
Problem is you don't have copyright on any of that.
QUOTE
(b London, May 1617; d London, July 1694). English painter. He was the son of James Wright, a tailor, and from 1636 to 1641 was apprenticed to the Edinburgh portrait painter George Jamesone. In the early 1640s he left Scotland for Rome, where he painted his earliest known portrait, Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (Tottenham House, Wilts, Marquess of Ailesbury priv. col.).
Born in May 1617, he was the son of a tailor names James Wright. Between 1636 and 1641 John Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone an Edinburgh portrait painter. He travelled from Scotland to Rome in the 1640s, and there he produced his earliest known portrait: Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (currently in Marquess of Ailesbury's private collection in Tottenham House).[1]
And the above is from our own good Doc.
My information came from the Grove Art dictionary, which was acknowledged in the footnote. There's only a certain number of ways of recording that information.
The NPG acknowledged no source whatsoever and indeed claimed the work as its own. It also used a far more sophisticated version of the text, which I created from information from multiple sources. So, yes, in any fair estimation I DO own the copyright. The NPG are, naturally, free to use it under the Wikipedia CC licence - but they are required to acknowledge the source.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:36pm)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 24th March 2011, 7:33pm)
Problem is you don't have copyright on any of that.
QUOTE
(b London, May 1617; d London, July 1694). English painter. He was the son of James Wright, a tailor, and from 1636 to 1641 was apprenticed to the Edinburgh portrait painter George Jamesone. In the early 1640s he left Scotland for Rome, where he painted his earliest known portrait, Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (Tottenham House, Wilts, Marquess of Ailesbury priv. col.).
Born in May 1617, he was the son of a tailor names James Wright. Between 1636 and 1641 John Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone an Edinburgh portrait painter. He travelled from Scotland to Rome in the 1640s, and there he produced his earliest known portrait: Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury (currently in Marquess of Ailesbury's private collection in Tottenham House).[1]
And the above is from our own good Doc.
My information came from the Grove Art dictionary, which was acknowledged in the footnote. There's only a certain number of ways of recording that information.
As such there is no WMF copyright on the text at all. It resides totally with Grove Art and for all you know they well have an arrangement with the NPG, or the NPG may well have provided Grove Art with the original text.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Thu 24th March 2011, 9:36pm)
The NPG acknowledged no source whatsoever and indeed claimed the work as its own. It also used a far more sophisticated version of the text, which I created from information from multiple sources. So, yes, in any fair estimation I DO own the copyright. The NPG are, naturally, free to use it under the Wikipedia CC licence - but they are required to acknowledge the source.
Again you do not have copyright on the text. Cobbling together bits of text from various sources does not give you copyright, unless you are claiming copyright by dint of sweat of brow, which is of course exactly what you have denied that the NPG is entitled to do.
How long before he finds this thread and accuses opposers of being part of an "off-wiki conspiracy by anti-Wikipedians to destroy Commons and Wikipedia?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Think that's good? Wait till you see the request three threads down; a petition to undelete all of banned editor Midnight68's/TGComix' little-girl-panty-fetish pics that he drew himself. Because the project really needs more poor-quality upskirt pics of children and their underwear (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 14th June 2011, 7:57pm)
Think that's good? Wait till you see the request three threads down; a petition to undelete all of banned editor Midnight68's.TGComix' little-girl-panty-fetish pics that he drew himself. Because the project really needs more poor-quality upskirt pics of children and their underwear (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
I am proposing undeletion because I want the decision regarding whether this image is kept to be based on community consensus, and not Jimbo's reactionary whims. I am content to accept whatever outcome results here. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess that's why they didn't bother asking about editors' race in the editor survey. You just look at the Commons penis gallery. It tells you all you need to know: there are no black folks on Wikimedia. (Except for Malik Shabazz (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, and he isn't stupid enough to post his dick to Commons. And then there was Deeceevoice (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, but she's female, and the white boys deleted everything she wrote.)
I guess that's why they didn't bother asking about editors' race in the editor survey. You just look at the Commons penis gallery. It tells you all you need to know: there are no black folks on Wikimedia. (Except for Malik Shabazz (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, and he isn't stupid enough to post his dick to Commons. And then there was Deeceevoice (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, but she's female, and the white boys deleted everything she wrote.)
I think TonyTheTiger is black.
Anyway, only goes to show that the WMF is so concerned about getting female editors that they don't seem to care about all the missing black editors outside of the African Wikipedias. Or Hispanic editors outside of those Wikipedias, etc.
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 19th June 2011, 4:36am)
there are no black folks on Wikimedia. (Except for Malik Shabazz (T-C-L-K-R-D)
I'm aware of a "black folk" who was blocked as a sockpuppet of a "white folk". That proves that WP admins make no distinction between white and black people!
I guess that's why they didn't bother asking about editors' race in the editor survey. You just look at the Commons penis gallery. It tells you all you need to know: there are no black folks on Wikimedia. (Except for Malik Shabazz (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, and he isn't stupid enough to post his dick to Commons. And then there was Deeceevoice (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, but she's female, and the white boys deleted everything she wrote.)
I think TonyTheTiger is black.
Anyway, only goes to show that the WMF is so concerned about getting female editors that they don't seem to care about all the missing black editors outside of the African Wikipedias. Or Hispanic editors outside of those Wikipedias, etc.
User:BlackNYer is black, as indicated by their name and demonstrated by their use of the word "yo". And clearly not a sockpuppet of David Shankbone.
I guess that's why they didn't bother asking about editors' race in the editor survey. You just look at the Commons penis gallery. It tells you all you need to know: there are no black folks on Wikimedia. (Except for Malik Shabazz (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, and he isn't stupid enough to post his dick to Commons. And then there was Deeceevoice (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, but she's female, and the white boys deleted everything she wrote.)
I think TonyTheTiger is black.
Anyway, only goes to show that the WMF is so concerned about getting female editors that they don't seem to care about all the missing black editors outside of the African Wikipedias. Or Hispanic editors outside of those Wikipedias, etc.
User:BlackNYer is black, as indicated by their name and demonstrated by their use of the word "yo". And clearly not a sockpuppet of David Shankbone.
The idea that everyone on WP who says they are black should be taken at their word, is very droll. Malik Shabbaz, despite his archetypically black name (look it up if you don't know who this historical name belonged to), is clearly a politically correct Jewish white boy doing a lot of projection. And my guess is that BlackNYer is, also. Big Kahuna, right. I'll bet he surfs in Hawaii in his spare time, and do many black people.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)