Child erotica Options

[carbuncle]

A coincidental meeting of some of popular WR themes and characters?

Stillwaterising, known for some strong opions about the recent porn deletions on Commons and for obessively polishing the bio of professional deepthroat enthusiast Heather Harmon, has added an image of an adult female model to Child erotica. That image comes from the uploads of the prolific Commons porn uploader Max Rebo Band.

I have no good explanation for why Stillwaterising would be adding a picture of an adult female -- she is a Suicide Girls model, so at least 18 -- to an article about "child" erotica.

[Stillwaterising]

I chose this image because it comes from a source that is 2257(e) compliant. I don't know how old this model actually is (however SG claims all models are over 18 at time of production), however it is not pornographic because it does not have show sexual conduct or "lascivious display" of genitalia. Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[GlassBeadGame]

I chose this image because it comes from a source that is 2257(e) compliant. I don't know how old this model actually is (however SG claims all models are over 18 at time of production), however it is not pornographic because it does not have show sexual conduct or "lascivious display" of genitalia. Use of an identifiable minor would be highly inappropiate so this image could be thought of as "simulated child erotica".

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

[Stillwaterising]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

This is from the provisional posting rules:

Statement of principles

The Wikipedia Review is an open forum, and its moderators pledge to avoid the sorts of vindictiveness and subterfuge that characterize the so-called "Wikipedia cabal."

[GlassBeadGame]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

This is from the provisional posting rules:

Statement of principles

The Wikipedia Review is an open forum, and its moderators pledge to avoid the sorts of vindictiveness and subterfuge that characterize the so-called "Wikipedia cabal."

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

[Stillwaterising]

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

You are not entitled to dictate the parameters of discussion here. Your exploitation and disregard for children is reprehensible. Go fuck yourself.

Patently false. I've fought tirelessly against child exploitation by expanding Wikipedia's legal coverage on the topic. I'm also the primary author of the child pornography restrictions of Com:Sex (current and April 2010 pro 2257 version).

I've also started numerous anti-child porn DRs and threads such as ongoing brittsuza@Flickr mass DR. I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[Kelly Martin]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

[Larry Sanger]

I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

This isn't Wikipedia. You may not divert attention from your own outrageous behavior by taking umbrage at others for being outraged at it.

Exactly. SWR's behavior is a textbook example of trolling behavior. Such behavior is essentially encouraged on Wikipedia by such insidious concepts as "assume good faith" and "wikilove" and other such cynical tools of Wikitrolling.

SWR, if you are really saying that what you've done is perfectly acceptable, then indeed as Mouton says, you have no moral compass. If you sincerely believe showing pix of "simulated child erotica" is OK, you're beyond polite conversation, and you have given up all rights to be treated with the ordinary sort of respectful deference that polite people accord to most people. This is just a fancy way of saying that since you've shown yourself to be a complete maroon, people are going to treat you like one, and you have no right to complain if people call you one, you maroon.

If, on the other hand, you know you've done something outrageous, and are merely "trolling for the lulz," then the same thing applies.

And if this is just a "breaching experiment," then you should say so here and defend it as such.

I totally respect Wikipedia Review's unmoderated nature. It's not for every online community (e.g., it's not for CZ), but it definitely has its place. But I wouldn't be here if WR did not also permit a forceful and honest response to idiocy and pathetic moral tone-deafness. I also wouldn't be here if I couldn't say "plonk" to people. Stillwaterising: plonk.

[Stillwaterising]

And if this is just a "breaching experiment," then you should say so here and defend it as such.

Affirmative.

I've started a channel on Freenode called #wikiporngate. I'll be available for the next hour or so.

This post has been edited by Stillwaterising:

[GlassBeadGame]

And if this is just a "breaching experiment," then you should say so here and defend it as such.

Affirmative.

I've started a channel on Freenode called #wikiporngate. I'll be available for the next hour or so.

It seem to me the only way to reconcile your previous heavy editing of porn related subjects with your recent more enlightened stances on some of the more abusive forms of porn on WP is that you are trying to establish credibility as some kind of cult of the amateur pseudo-expert on pornography. The problem with this kind of phony expertise has been clear laid open for all to see by your irresponsible placement of the pic into the child erotica article. No real expert informed by an established discipline or profession would have made such an unconscionable blunder. This demonstrates better than any discussion could possibly why WMF needs to take this type of editorial decision away for the community and place it squarely within the purview of the board of trustees after securing the best available counsel from legitimate experts in the field of matters relating to child protection.

The answer will not be found on Freenode.

[Stillwaterising]

It seem to me the only way to reconcile your previous heavy editing of porn related subjects with your recent more enlightened stances on some of the more abusive forms of porn on WP is that you are trying to establish credibility as some kind of cult of the amateur pseudo-expert on pornography.

In my research into Health Concerns in the Adult Film Industry (net yet written) I came across information that caused me to have a change of heart.

See http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn

[Somey]

In my research into Health Concerns in the Adult Film Industry (net yet written) I came across information that caused me to have a change of heart.

See http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn

Okay, that seems plausible enough to me, though I personally thought it was common knowledge that there's an disproportionately high incidence of STD's, drug abuse, and suicide attempts among adult entertainers. The story of Linda "Lovelace" Boreman is fairly well known - she was even the subject of a documentary or two, as I recall. I might have even seen one of them myself... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Even so, as far as the actors and actresses are concerned, you're still dealing with a very small number of people who, for the most part, are adults and should be somewhat aware of the sort of thing they're getting into, and the kind of people they're likely to be dealing with. Though most of what appears on WP isn't produced by those people, it's produced by amateurs or independents, many of whom are unpaid and operating in near-complete anonymity. (I suppose they may well have a high incidence of STD's and drug abuse too, for that matter.)

There's still the issue of whether or not non-photographic sexual imagery (particularly if it involves what might appear to the viewer to be children) can be considered pornographic or potentially illegal, of course. Speaking only for myself, I can sympathize with the idea that the standard of explicitness should be higher for drawings and paintings and such, or even animated film and video depictions - but the idea that a non-photographic image cannot, by definition, be pornographic strikes me as almost absurd. For one thing, you'd actually be insulting the artist in some cases, who may well be trying to produce something pornographic. For another, an animated or drawn character can do things (and exhibit certain lewdly exaggerated physical characteristics) that a real person can't, which could easily be disturbing to a younger audience. Or for that matter, an older audience, perhaps even more so!

[dogbiscuit]

There's still the issue of whether or not non-photographic sexual imagery (particularly if it involves what might appear to the viewer to be children) can be considered pornographic or potentially illegal, of course. Speaking only for myself, I can sympathize with the idea that the standard of explicitness should be higher for drawings and paintings and such, or even animated film and video depictions - but the idea that a non-photographic image cannot, by definition, be pornographic strikes me as almost absurd. For one thing, you'd actually be insulting the artist in some cases, who may well be trying to produce something pornographic. For another, an animated or drawn character can do things (and exhibit certain lewdly exaggerated physical characteristics) that a real person can't, which could easily be disturbing to a younger audience. Or for that matter, an older audience, perhaps even more so!

In the UK, it is specifically legislated against.