Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_erotica&diff=366290846&oldid=366289667 of an adult female model to Child erotica. That http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIerced_Topless_Boyshorts.png 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.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

That girl needs to learn how to knit properly.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

To the extent that the image is intended to depict (even with an adult model) child erotica it is, at a minimum, grossly inappropriate. If it is not intended as such a depiction it is irrelevant. In any case it should be removed from the article. Also wouldn't hurt anything to delete the image as having no educational value.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

In the UK, the law on child pornography is so widely drawn that it would treat something intended to be perceived as child pornography as such, in the same way that drawings and altered photographs fall under the remit. It was a pragmatic response to just such attempts at getting around previous legislation.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

I chose this image because it comes from a source that is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html#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".

Posted by: Subtle Bee

So, this is your rationale, then?

Posted by: Moulton

Maybe it's a "breaching experiment."

Posted by: EricBarbour

Maybe SWR is trolling us. (Just a thought.)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

You're basically a free culture scumbag.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

This is from the provisional posting rules:

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

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

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The way you can tell that this is not Wikipedia, stillwaterising, is that GlassBeadGame hasn't banned you from posting, even though he has that authority. Being a scumbag isn't against the rules of this forum; neither is calling someone one, especially when the shoe fits.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

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 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Brittany_Suza_(brittsuza)_from_Flickr mass DR. I realize that this is a hot topic, however incivility l, from a Moderator no less, is completely uncalled for.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I am limiting my consideration to the placement of an erotic image of a young woman with features physically consistent with those of a child (although purported to be an adult) into an article on "child erotica." This act was exploitative and irresponsible. You cannot expect to avoid condemnation in the strongest possible terms for this kind of act. I have no desire to be polite or welcoming to a person who did such a unconscionable thing.

Some of your other positions on WP may be better than this action but that in no way justifies your conduct.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

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

Posted by: Stillwaterising

Please consider the whole picture then. Please keep in the mind, and feel free to check the record, that I have NEVER uploaded an explicit image and this is the ONLY image of this type that I've inserted into an article. I did so to illustrate a point and bring awareness to this issue. I followed all laws and image guidelines. I did not intend to cause any disruption.


How could I be trolling WR if I didn't start this thread?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

The appropriate type of awareness that using an image of a physically immature young adult girl as a proxy for an image depicting actual child erotica is not pleasant discussion but outrage. This is the type of conduct heretofore limited to the seediest kind of pornography skirting the edge of the law as close as possible. This convinces me that whatever else you might have to say on the matter you lack the maturity to have any voice in editorial decisions relating to children.

Posted by: Subtle Bee

I don't think we have any sort of civility policy per se, and we're largely glad of it. I don't think anything GBG said comes close to "vindictiveness" or "subterfuge", though feel free to contradict me.


Instead of, perhaps subconsciously, attempting to shift the focus with wiki-style getting offended about civilty, how's about you explain briefly why the hell you were thinking an article on "child erotica" required a picture?

Posted by: Moulton

[Chagrined.]

Posted by: Stillwaterising

Obstensibly, very few articles require images, however Commons has over 6 million or them and I had noticed this "boyshorts" image earlier in a discussion thread for Commons Talk:Sexual Content called http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Sexy_teenagers. I had started working on Child Erotica ten hours earlier as part of the newly created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test that I wrote initially to help define what kind of images of children (with children meaning any person under the age of consent by the legal definition) should be considered prohibited. Since this image is from SuicideGirls, and they do claim that all of their models are 18+ and claim to hold http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html records, I thought this image may be a suitable to demonstrate what child erotica looks like without actually displaying a child.

A copy of this girl's drivers license and signed record keeping form with date(s) of photography should be held by SG's custiodian of records found at their legal page http://suicidegirls.com/legal/. Please note, they can only be viewed by an US Attorney or law enforcement with a legitimate search warrant.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Nor can you "wikilawyer" around here, by quoting from "da roolz".
No workie.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

B-b-but I thought the "I'm offended that you're offended" defense was a huge hit around here.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

In the UK, such an image could well still be illegal. Due to previous law being found to being difficult to enforce, with people working around the problem in exactly the way you have done, substituting drawings or models while still trying to create a particular image, more recent legislation bans such subterfuge.

You might then consider the Wikipedian argument that you cannot take into account all laws of all countries; this is usually code for not wanting to take into account laws in any country, and the only reason for compliance with US law is self-preservation rather than recognising the moral authority enshrined within the legal system. Think on this though. If it were determined that you personally were distributing child pornography as recognised by legislation in the UK, and your name became linked and recorded due to UK investigations, you might never be able to travel freely to Europe for fear of being charged with distribution of child pornography.

It is a fanciful but attractive image that Jimbo might be deported from the UK due to his role in the WMF tolerating such content, whether it is placed there by the evil or the naive.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Maybe Florence would like not having to fund his return ticket.

Posted by: Moulton

It's as much a moral/ethical issue as a legal one.

As much as politicians try, there is good evidence that you simply can't legislate morality.

Then again, you can't legislate lamentations, http://akahele.org/2009/04/guilt-shame-and-remorse/, or chagrin, either.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Moral ... ethical ... and a simple one of marketing.

Who, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at?

Stillwaterising, I don't know. We have never crossed swords. On a very brief overview, you appear to be one of the "players" in this Wiki-porn drama.

What is your position and your take on it all?

To whom, and for what purpose, is the Wikipedia being marketed at and should the Wikipedia being marketed at?

As it is also being marketed at children and educational facilities, how do you think it should handle the Porn issue?


As a side note to others ... this has never really being raised before to my knowledge ... does anyone not suspect that the whole issue of Suicide Girls being fed into Flickr and then scrapped into Wikipedia not constitute as obvious advertising by the company being it?

SG is a company previous recently accused of exploitation, its male owner Sean Suhl accused of treating women poorly and failing to pay them, from which many models continue to leave.

Just to look closer at how Web 2.0 works "empowering" ordinary people into doing stuff for free ... the lead SG girl's blog which brought about the walks out and first voiced criticism, is http://sicilymeow.livejournal.com/.

Posted by: carbuncle

Leaving the question of why this article needs an image, why would you think that an image of a post-pubescent young woman would be a suitable substitute for one of a child? She clearly isn't a child, whatever doubts you may have about her age. Isn't "child erotica" much more likely to depict actual children? Wouldn't readers perhaps be mislead by your choice of an image into thinking that "child erotica" is a harmless charade by adults and not the deliberate sexualization of pre-pubescent children? Just curious about your thought process leading up to the inclusion of the image.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

This was inspired by reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber. In the actual text it says:

Posted by: One

God, you're dense. The outrage here is not that anyone thinks what you've done is illegal in the United States. The problem is that you have no moral compass on this issue whatsoever.

Why the fucking hell is it good and proper to "demonstrate what child erotica looks like"?

That's why you said you posted the image, and I find your rationale mind-boggling.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

So SCOTUS made you do it? Well that's original. The above is a discussion that even given the courts reference to "scientific and artistic" uses almost always applies to the pornography industry. WP purports to some kind of encyclopedia. Pornographer achieve this end run to get content for viewer seeking to satisfy their desire to view images otherwise prohibited child sexual depictions by using "models" who appear to be children. Back away from from skirting the boundaries of law. To do otherwise makes you a Free Culture Scumbag of the first order.

Posted by: Moulton

This is the part that troubles me, as well. The law cannot possibly provide a moral compass. That's not the function of the law.

Which begs the question that One poses.

Where is your moral compass on this issue?

Posted by: Emperor

It costs nothing to be polite.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

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.

Posted by: Somey

I was under the impression that Mr. Stillwaterising was one of those people who, shall we say, really really enjoys online porn (if not porn in general) and is willing to make whatever efforts or arguments are necessary to protect it, even if it means getting heavily involved with Wikipedia. I've looked at his contribution history and I suppose it could be said that he actually does want to keep a lid on child porn (at least the more blatant stuff), if only as a way to ensure the continued availability (if not growth) of adult porn. However, since he and the other WP'ers have largely failed in keeping said lid on, he's now trying to reconcile his past porn advocacy with recent arguments for morally responsible behavior WRT child-abuse imagery.

Am I at least in the ballpark here? I would agree that in his case, what might have been a "moral compass" does seem to have been replaced with a set of US legal citations, but then again, that's probably better than nothing.

Either way, the solution to this (if there is one) is probably not to find more subjects to write about that can potentially be illustrated with "erotic" images of underaged individuals, even if those articles are ostensibly about the abusive nature of such things...?

Posted by: HRIP7

Hmm, I have to say that judging by a few deletion discussions, his work at the COM:SEX draft sexual content policy for Commons, as well as posts to the Foundation list, it would be ludicrous to accuse Stillwaterising of being an advocate for the presence of any kind of gratuitous sexual imagery on Commons, or in Wikipedia. Do him the courtesy of spending an hour looking at his Commons contributions, or even better, ask Max Rebo Band for his opinion on Stillwaterising.

Stillwaterising also happens to be the editor who http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&action=historysubmit&diff=40195096&oldid=40194508 the reference to the Dost test (T-H-L-K-D) in the proposed Sexual content policy. Without that addition, there would have been nothing in the draft policy to prevent anyone uploading an image of an actual 12-year-old in that pose and attire.

I too am a little puzzled that he introduced the image, which was discussed at the COM:SEX talk page, into this article. I can only think that it was a case of so many people telling us that photos of women with small breasts are fine and that the image was fine on Commons that he tried to find an "educational use" for it.

Posted by: One

That's undoubtedly true.

Posted by: Subtle Bee

I appreciate that SWR did provide an answer to my question. To clarify, the issue for me is not anything to do with that particular picture, but with the editorial assumption that this particular article needed a picture, period. My view is emphatically "no!", and I dearly hope there are many other unsavoury topics that remain unillustrated, and I wonder if SWR disagrees.

Do "rape", and "castrati", and "infanticide" all profit from a picture? In the present case, if I know what a child is, and erotica, do I really need an ersatz picture to put those concepts together? Even when the picture is neither?

I think the answers are trivially obvious, and to the extent that SWR is concerned only with the legality of the picture, and not the greater question of why any picture at all, they seem to miss the boat. In fact, this illustrates one of the many recognized failings of the WP model, and I don't think I need to draw everyone a picture.

Also, I endeavour to remain polite and responsive, but the truth is that's beyond creepy.

Posted by: Somey

So you don't think the usual 20-30 minutes was enough?

I mean, taking Commons:Sexual Content as the primary example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ASexual_content&action=historysubmit&diff=37572829&oldid=17767382 (his first on the page, which had been started by Privatemusings) is clearly an attempt to water down the proposal in accordance with US-based legal strictures, which are obviously a lower standard than the kind of morality-based criteria that you'd find in just about any traditionally-published encyclopedia (unless it's an encyclopedia of porn, of course).

Anyway, I don't believe I said that he specifically advocated the inclusion of "gratuitous" pornographic content... I guess I'm just saying that he's arguing the pro-porn position by invoking US law in such a way as to lower the inclusion standards that were originally proposed. I'm just guessing about the "really really likes porn" part, but let's face it, that's a common characteristic of internet denizens, and not a crime either (in the vast majority of cases at least). I could claim that he's "wikilawyering" or something to that effect, but that term isn't normally used to describe what he's actually been doing. (Also, as always bear in mind that if it weren't for the lack of disclaimers and content-filtering META tags, not to mention the presence of child admins in general, I might be largely on his side in this particular controversy.)

As for the Deletion Review votes, I'm of two minds about that... True, he did vote to delete quite a number of images, but if you ask me, a lot of those votes were just no-brainers - the quality of those images as pornography was simply terrible. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fellation_from_2006.JPG (NSFW), for example, is just worthless, both as a depiction of the act in question and as erotica or a means of titillation. If a professional porn photographer tried to pass photos (hey, more alliteration!) like that off as "erotica," he or she would be out of business in no time at all.

All in all, I'm trying to take a middle ground here - I don't think he's as much of a pornmonger as some of the people on Commons, but in some ways his intelligence and rationality about it just makes him a much more effective obstacle to imposing morality-based standards. I'm sure my saying that will only encourage him, but either way, let's not try to paint him as one of the responsible ones - cleverness with words and a knowledge of US case law don't confer a sense of moral responsibility on anybody. (To some extent, the exact opposite may be true!)


Well, thanks for stating in one paragraph what took me four paragraphs, but he's really only "missing the boat" with respect to the general public (or at least most of us here on WR). As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he's building the damn boat.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Of course. But try telling that to, say, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29733.
You'll probably have to loan him a few quid first.

Posted by: HRIP7

My recollection is that Stillwaterising nominated several dozen sexual images for deletion in the first half of May, and took a fair amount of abuse for it in Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fellation_from_2006.JPG is an example; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Manual_Stimulation.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Taric_Alani_Self_sucker.jpg are others. I generally agreed with those deletion requests. I honestly don't ever recall Stillwaterising voting "Keep" on a naff sexual image.

I think his recourse to legal considerations was a response to the generally prevailing rather immature mindset that holds sway at Commons, as evident in the above deletion discussions he started (community consensus was against deleting any of those images). As someone said above, although respecting the law can't replace editorial judgment, it is better than nothing, and pointing to legislation increases the chance of the draft policy being accepted by the community.

But I have read his mind enough now and will leave it to him to explain himself to you, if he wants to.

Posted by: Subtle Bee

Well sure, one person's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah is another's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charon_(mythology). It's an old dilemma...

(sorry Horse!)

Posted by: Stillwaterising

Affirmative.

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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

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.

Posted by: Moulton

Let me see if I have this straight...

A discussion about child erotica (with or without illustrations) is within the scope of WMF-sponsored sites, but a discussion about managerial ethics (with or without song parodies) is "beyond the scope" of the project.

Well, OK. It is what it is.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Stillwaterising, I asked you the child question ... what do you think about the relationship between the idea of an encyclopedia targeting educational facilities and children ... and pornography?

This is all just another example of the futility and impossibility of "discussion" on the Porno-pedia ... and what its purpose truly is.

Fluffing "discussion" about porn is just another way of grinding down and burying opposition who, ultimately, as unpaid serfs give up and go off elsewhere leaving the ground to the truly obsessive. Only the truly obsessive "win" on Wikipedia.

To be that obsessive about pornography is as creepy. I think we saw similar is another "expert" on pedophilia that was obviously skating around on a very thin surface of advocacy of pedophilia. In this case, the symbolic value of the SG image is equal to hentai manga of young girls whether the model is over 18 or not.


In social structures, no great change is possible without some kind of external input of energy, without nothing happens, they will only get worse until their point of absolute failure ... that is social entropy in action. It happens on a social level. It happens on a moral level. The stagnancy and impossibility of discussion is evidence of it.

The question is merely how long will it take until the point of failure ... when sufficient energy givers just walk away from it.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

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

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Very good for you if you did ... (but is uploading fap material to the internet really called research these days?)

And what about the children?

Posted by: Somey

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lovelace#Charges_against_Chuck_Traynor 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...

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!

Posted by: dogbiscuit

In the UK, it is specifically legislated against.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

Ok, so what about the child, Loretta from SuicideGirls? She's http://suicidegirls.com/girls/Loretta/photos/Balls/ actually. Her profile page is http://suicidegirls.com/girls/Loretta/. I noticed instant cognitive dissonance at what appears to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_regression_fetish.

As far as I know, all seven sets of images were all are of the same girl, the last six are dated 2005-2006. The first one, from which the Flickr picture was uploaded is dated 2007, so this one should be the most recent, right?

The photos were dated June 14, 2007, but is this the upload date or date of photography? The http://suicidegirls.com/boards/The+Pictures/223329/ section goes
This girl isn't native English speaker, but what I think she's seems to be saying is: I've seen your other photo sets and this looks nothing like you. They look like old childhood photos! Very very cute! You're beautiful.
Remember the above quote is from a fellow SG contract girl and is very telling.

For policy on age verification see: http://suicidegirls.com/girlsfaq/

Posted by: carbuncle

Let's assume you're not just trolling and you believe that "Loretta" was younger than 18 at the time these pictures were taken, based solely on your own opinion and despite the legal requirement for Suicide Girls to verify the age of their models. What was your purpose in adding the image to the "child erotica" article?

Posted by: Stillwaterising

Lets say for the sake of argument that Loretta was over the age of 18 years old when she applied to join SuicideGirls and submitted a scanned copy of her passport and some other acceptable form of identification like her state-issued medical coverage card. Next she created an account and uploaded a "set" of photographs.

Her profile says "Loretta is a 24 year old SG from Sweden" in the title bar. The set in question was from Jun 14, 2007 (3 years ago) so she would have been around 21 then. The first set (2 years earlier) she appears to be over 18.

The photographer's profile is http://suicidegirls.com/members/Azmodan/ (scary). I don't know what these photo's contain (not a member), but anybody who pays $12/mo can view the whole set, which MUST contain (from sect 5.20 of http://suicidegirls.com/girlsfaq/):

Q: Do I have to get naked?
A: Yes, you do have to be fully nude. Fully exposed breasts and bums are required, but spread shots definitely are not. The nudity should be tasteful not graphic, but you do have to be fully nude. Think along the lines of cute, pin-up photography and not explicit nudity. We will not accept explicit, close up spread shots, any holding or touching, and certainly no penetration!! Your application never expires, so you are more than welcome to wait until you are fully comfortable to send us a set.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Why would I bother to "remember" anything that came off SuicideGirls? It is a website full of tarts 'buying' revolution from a bottle of ink and a stick of surgical steel being sold and exploited by a single white male under the guise of "empowerment" and providing fap material for older men who probably never got it when they were young.

If that scene was cool for 15 minutes, it was a long, long time ago.

What I am taking about the will injection of coarse, hard-core, amateur pornography, and corruption of the concept and principles of the encyclopedia as a education device, which is at the same time being targeted at real children ... not adults dressing up or even playing as them.

How far from reality are you!?!

The problem with entering into any such discussion with you on such matters is unappealing because of the the kind of logic and strategy you are using. I am starting to think you just get off on it. It will take on your behalf to prove to me that you are not.

I do not know if you are a perv ... a pedo ... a porno-freak ... or a pederast but if you are not, and you have never had the misfortune to have a discussion with one over their obsession, then you could not know why it is so unappealing.

Back to the question ... "what about the children?" ... real children ... that most ridicule question on the Wikipedia.

Do you take the Mollerian position that a little bit of hard-core porn, or even a little bit of child erotica, never did anyone any harm?

Needless to say, SuicideGirls is not an encyclopedia and not targeted at children. In fact, it had its own run in with the FBI a few years back and had to clean up its act a little.

There is nothing that enlightened or revolutionary about flashing your bits in public.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

This is just creepy. You are not the appropriate person to be making determinations concerning "shades" of pornography. WP needs to back off, consistent with its educational mission and the fact that it is targeted for use by minors, at least as a significant and probably largest single demographic. This means sharply curtailing all but the most obviously relevant medical and scientific depictions and even then avoiding any realistic depictions when possible and certainly nothing with anything remotely like minor or near minor models. This is consistent with other general use encyclopedias. This needs to be imposed. You are seeking "secondary gains" of a very unsavory nature even in your obtuse discussions as is clearly indicated by your placement of an image, any image, in the child erotica article.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

¿Que?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

...or reserve a Freenode channel for a porn discussion. Your placement of the image into the article seems to have been meant as a "conversation starter." You just plain like talking about porn.

Posted by: Moulton

If that's the case, a more useful question would be, "What do you hope to learn by way of a discussion of these issues of child erotica?"

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Some "talk" is not about "learn."

Posted by: Moulton

Let's let SWR admit that.

Posted by: carbuncle

If you're trying to make a point here, I'm really not getting what it is. Why are you avoiding my question for a second time? What was your purpose in adding the image to the "child erotica" article?

Posted by: Kevin

I asked the same thing on IRC about 3 times and all I got was evasiveness, talk of 2257, the apparent age of the model, and how it fit within Commons' scope. No substantive answer on this question was forthcoming. I don't think he remotely understands the issues.

Posted by: Somey

More likely he knows he did something dumb, if not seriously wrong, and doesn't want to "man up" about it...? Because, you know, that would be embarrassing.

Posted by: Moulton

That's why I suggested asking him what he's trying to learn via these discussions. It's not an embarrassment to be a lifelong learner.

Posted by: Alison

I hate it when I agree 100% with GBG. Dang!

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

I have asked twice how Stillwaterising can square the inclusion of hard core amateur porn and the targeting of school and children and I am also being blanked.

Does not say much for the sincerity of their Damascene conversion.

Posted by: Lar

Me either. I do know that over on Commons, SWR has been involved in a lot of disputes with various folk. Some are in the "we must have porn on Commons" camp and some have been working to do things about it for some time (however ineffectively) but SWR doesn't think they're trying hard enough, or whatever.

I'm not sure SWR's contributions are a net positive overall. Or what SWR's actual long term goal is.

Posted by: Stillwaterising

My purpose was several fold:
1. Bring awareness to the issue
2. Reuse this image as a test case of proposed child erotica policies (none existed before I wrote them -http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&diff=40195096&oldid=40194508)
3. Test the Commons' community reaction to

Getting attention like this wasn't what I was expecting. I don't see how people can sit back in their chairs and freely attack my motivations but sit back and do nothing about it.

Here's what I encourage people to do:
1. Read and participate developing the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SEX. Policies set by Commons affect ALL projects, not just Commons.
2. Report any (on or off-wiki) images of apparent (no proof needed) child pornography/erotica to the https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US. This included drawing/illustrations/and cartoons regardless of date of manufacture.
3. Report any images found on WMF to the Foundation (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us)
4. Contact the lawmakers and policy makers (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/optf/) and help get the laws changed.
5. Last -- stop attacking the messenger! If you want to "go after" somebody go after the person(s) rescpondible for Cock and ball torture (T-H-L-K-D).

Please read my signature below. That's his original statement which has been misquoted as "All it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing."

Posted by: thekohser

I'm banned from most every Wikimedia project.

How can I help you?!




You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cock_and_ball_torture&diff=8496194&oldid=8175059?

Sure, I'll be happy to "go after" him. Unban, please!!

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Still cluessless. You do not even seem to grasp the reason people find your action unacceptable. ★★★Porn Czar ★★★ is not going to happen for you. Go find something else to do.

Posted by: carbuncle

As at least one other person has already suggested in this discussion, your actions don't seem congruent with your stated intentions. That might be some failing on my part to understand what you hope your actions will set in motion on WP.

Let's see if I get this:

• from your earlier messages here, you seem to believe that the woman pictyred in the image in question was a minor when the photo was taken;
• you have proposed policies intended to prevent editors from adding child erotica to WP;
• you added the image (which you believe to be actual child erotica) to WP;

Am I missing something?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

If you are a born again anti-porner how come you're doing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heather_Harmon&diff=prev&oldid=366388231 edits on a fanboy article of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heather_Harmon&diff=prev&oldid=366388717as recently as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heather_Harmon&diff=prev&oldid=366391226?

Posted by: HRIP7

Hmm. I've put the images on that page into a collapsible gallery. Let's see how long it stays that way.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

By that: If seeing these pictures is not necessary to understand this topic they should not be part of the article at all. For such optional "and if ur really into this shit" images a link to a page on commons should suffice. If you have the desire and a potent strategy to delete these photos and any extant commons gallery of 'em outright, you should pursue that by all fucking means.

If your idea is to "compromise" and keep http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skinny_Dick%27s_Halfway_Inn_Roadhouse_-_front_-_DSCN0902.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skinny_Dick%27s_Halfway_Inn_Roadhouse_-_warning_sign_-_DSCN0903.JPG this article you've aimed too low.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Folks here have counted about the do-ers for a long time ... I dont think we are "attacking" your actions. It is natural that we question where it is all going.

I am sorry but folks ask difficult questions in order to test the water. Blanking or ignoring them is likely to raise suspicious.

That is all.

Posted by: Moulton

What is the name of this drama?

It occurs to me that attacking someone's motivations is hardly synonymous with sitting back in their chair and doing nothing about it. All drama requires actors who enact their actions and reactions by being motivated to respond to the motivations and actions of other characters in their common drama. See http://knol.google.com/k/cognition-affect-and-learning#Clancy(27)s_Theorem for more details.

Posted by: ulsterman

Only about eight hours, of course. It was reverted by (surprise, surprise) leading subject expert Max Rebo Band. (I can't bear to check; are any of those photos his?) His justification is "rvt per MOS". We can't do someting as drastic as violating the MOS just to improve an article, can we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cock_and_ball_torture&diff=next&oldid=367039933

Posted by: HRIP7

I've started a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Cock_and_ball_torture_.28NSFW.29.

Posted by: thekohser

Something very pertinent to mention (and I'd do it myself, but I'm banned on the English Wikipedia by ArbCom's Risker, with a top-kill motion by Jimbo Wales to boot) is that people could very likely be using Wikipedia's new and improved Search box to look for "cock and bull story". But, if they slip up for even a second and hit the down arrow and "Enter" too soon, they're in for a face-full of strapped up, electric man-meat.

You see, in the real world outside of Wikipedia, people are way, way more likely to be searching for "cock and bull" than "cock and ball", and that's http://trends.google.com/trends?q=cock+and+bull%2C+cock+and+ball&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 with empirical data.

In the mixed up WikiWorld, though, it's all upside down. The article "Cock and ball torture" gets about http://stats.grok.se/en/201005/Cock_and_ball_torture per month, a Google PageRank of 4/10, on an Alexa # 6 web domain; while "Cock and bull story" -- the topic that http://trends.google.com/trends?q=cock+and+bull+story%2C+cock+and+ball+torture&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 in the general webosphere are looking for and reading about in the news -- is deliberately demoted to a http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cock-and-bull_story that has a Google PageRank of 2/10, on an Alexa # 840 web domain.

Normal people would find this funny. Wikipediots find it entirely defensible.

Posted by: Larry Sanger

Did you notice that in that noticeboard discussion,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Cock_and_ball_torture_.28NSFW.29

Michael Snow shows up and declares, "I won't comment on the specific case, since I have no desire to look at the images, but about the general principle, I fully agree with Greg L. ... --Michael Snow (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)"

The "general principle" here is: "With regard to collapsable galleries in general across Wikipedia, a consensus reached on one article does not necessarily have bearing on another; circumstances can vary."

He doesn't exactly take a stand, but by adding to the discussion and failing to make the slightest critical remark, he certainly seems to be supporting the status quo. Mealy-mouthed in the finest Jimboesque tradition.

UPDATE: added the following.

UPDATE 2: my latest tweets (http://twitter.com/lsanger):

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

First use of Twitter I've ever seen that seemed worthwhile.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

So ... how the *&$% will you know how bad it is or how inappropriate it is for children if you will not look at it, Mickey?

Is the Chair of the Mediawiki Foundation not failing in his duty of care by refusing to have some editorial review of what they are using their donors', the foundations and the tax dollars funding for?

So, here you go Michael ... and all over concerned parties.

Posted by: HRIP7

Well, editorial review is evidently up to the volunteer community, rather than the board. Judging by the current status of the discussion, the community sees even less of a problem than the Foundation chair. After all, his comments have been the most sympathetic so far, if sympathetic is not too strong a word to use here.

Frankly, I doubt the discussion is going to go anywhere from here. The thing is what it is, cock and ball and all.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I hope you're saving all these cartoons. Because I've got a place for them.

Posted by: Somey

Who are the people in the lower-right corner? And should they really be saying "starers," or is that some sort of Freudian typo?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Well spotted ... They are, of course, Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt (now OBE) lead guitar and singer of 'the Status Quo', authors of the aptly entitled "Down Down" (1975).

Now wishing to distract from the topic too much, I note that, a) we have still not read any response from Stillwaterising regarding the suitability of such porn and targeting children, b) Sanger is getting the blunt brush off from aggressive editors with a, "the WMF have little sway here" and c) Wnt (T-C-L-K-R-D) claims ...

Strangely tortured choice of words, surely ... "safe" and "child erotica"?

In my experience, that should read "most readers in the U.S. are "appalled and disgusted" looking at Japanese comicbook child pornography" ... am I wrong? How far from reality are these people?

Japanese comicbook child pornography remains one of the more shocking elements of that society and would clearly be prosecutable in near all other jurisdictions.

Now, excuse me whilst I "safely" indulge myself with something a little blues and ... M-O-A-R S-O-N-G P-A-R-O-D-Y-!-!-!

Right down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Wiki cred has sunk right down

I want all the world to see
To see we're laughing, and laughing at the Wiki-pee
We cant take all the porn from them
Again again again again
Again again again ... their cred is right down

Down down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Wiki cred has sunk right down

We have all the ways you see
To tell the world, that they're messing with you and me
We'll be back to tell them so
Again again again again
Again-gain-gain-gain ... their cred is right down

Right down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Right down

Right down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Right down deeper and down

We've found out what they dont want the world to see
We know what they're hiding, what most people dont see
We'll keep on telling folk so
Again again again again
Again-gain-gain-gain ... Wiki cred is right down

Down down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Down down deeper and down
Right down

Jeez ... parodies really are much easier when they only have two chords and tiny verses.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Heh heh. Perfect. Since Status Quo was legendary for the stupidity of their song lyrics, they'd make a great choice for a Wikipedia "house band". In fact, you could have a Brainless House Band Trifecta, with those legendary Evil Horrors of 70s glam-rock: Status Quo, Sweet, and Slade. Oh the agony.

Posted by: Moulton

YES!

Posted by: HRIP7

Meanwhile, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Image_use_in_cock_and_ball_torture_.28NSFW.29.2C_gangrene_and_others, as pointless as ever, has merrily moved to include the WP:NOTCENSORED images in gangrene (T-H-L-K-D).

Cycl0pia is in fine fettle again, doing his best to argue that a little cabinet of horrors is exactly what people should expect to find at that article, and if they don't, then it must be their fault. Encycl0pedia my foot.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I've seen far worse in medical encyclopedias. Again, the problem here is that Wikipedia has no idea who its audience is; such pictures are absolutely appropriate in a reference work targeted at adult professionals, but are shocking and over the top in a work targeted for the general public and especially for one targeted for children.

Posted by: HRIP7

Wikipedia is never going to be consulted as an authoritative reference source by medical specialists. In that sense, we do know at least who isnt't part of its audience.

Posted by: HRIP7

However, Wnt (T-C-L-K-R-D) has helpfully http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=367991186&oldid=367989590 that Wikipedia should also be the encyclopedia for "thrill seekers". I am not sure Jimbo, the board or the Foundation's sponsors would necessarily agree, but I think we are getting closer to the heart of the matter.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

The thrill of gangrene. The agony of the feet.

Posted by: Moulton

WP certainly attracts a core of drama queens, who (presumably) seek the thrill of drama as it frequently arises in WikiCulture.

Posted by: Somey

Hey, if people aren't being totally grossed out, then the WP'ers must not be doing their jobs!

I'm surprised the article doesn't have a photograph of the New York Jets in the intro, rather than a mere "hatnote."

The thing is, experience tells us that articles with "extreme" imagery tend to attract more vandalism, i.e., people who make edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangrene&diff=prev&oldid=292993871. It's somewhat predictable; presumably you have small groups of kids in school libraries or whatever, one of them exclaims, "Ewww, gross!" and the other kids look over and say, "what's gross?" and the first kid tells them (or IM's them with a link), at which point one or more of the other kids makes an edit to the effect of "this is what Randy's penis looked like after he had sex with your sister," ad nauseam.

The images themselves may or may not be disturbing and/or inappropriate for little kids, but it's probably fair to say that by putting a photo of a necrotic foot in the intro, the WP'ers are just making more work for themselves.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well that would be a first.