Commons contributor Midnight68, Little girls' knickers, spanking, lolicons Options

[Alison]

In particular, I would find the pre-1960s-TV-filter version of the "screenshots" to be fascinating. Especially if it turned out to be higher resolution. Powers (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap*

When I pointed out the obvious, he got quite irate.

Taking bets now on how long before I'm de-sysopped and banned from Commons

[Larry Sanger]

What the *$&(@ is wrong with WM Commons?! This stuff was pointed out three days ago, there was an almost unanimous agreement to take it down, and then exactly nothing happens?

[EricBarbour]

When I pointed out the obvious, he got quite irate.

You go, girl.

Before they toss you, don't forget to post a link to his Hentai Factory userpage......
so they can all enjoy some of the "work" of his buddies over there. And this.

What the *$&(@ is wrong with WM Commons?! This stuff was pointed out three days ago, there was an almost unanimous agreement to take it down, and then exactly nothing happens?

Still trying to figure this out. Commons seems to be getting more "free-culture-y" than the
other wikis, and no one can say why.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 7th August 2010, 3:21am

[TungstenCarbide]

What the *$&(@ is wrong with WM Commons?! This stuff was pointed out three days ago, there was an almost unanimous agreement to take it down, and then exactly nothing happens?

Still trying to figure this out. Commons seems to be getting more "free-culture-y" than the
other wikis, and no one can say why.

Gmaxwell is an administrator and checkuser there, he's also the foundation's Chief Research Officer. Maybe we should ask him.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 7th August 2010, 3:35am

[CharlotteWebb]

Commons seems to be getting more "free-culture-y" than the other wikis, and no one can say why.

Fewer Americans per capita would be my guess.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

In case anyone ever is fooled by the "its educational" line on his child pornography, without going to the openly hard core links above, more of his work here:

So much for the "due diligence" of the Wikipedia's voluntary administrator staff.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Kogaru6.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Kogaru3.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Geshuku1.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:ScreenDES.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:IKUSApanty01.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Saori05a.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Miko02a.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:LGP02.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:KissMyAss.jpg

[Alison]

In case anyone ever is fooled by the "its educational" line on his child pornography, without going to the openly hard core links above, more of his work here:

So much for the "due diligence" of the Wikipedia's voluntary administrator staff.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Kogaru6.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Kogaru3.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Geshuku1.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:ScreenDES.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:IKUSApanty01.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Saori05a.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Miko02a.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:LGP02.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:KissMyAss.jpg

And for the record, he (as TGComix) is banned from ED and pretty-much universally hated over there

[Subtle Bee]

In case anyone ever is fooled by the "its educational" line on his child pornography, without going to the openly hard core links above, more of his work here:

So much for the "due diligence" of the Wikipedia's voluntary administrator staff.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Kogaru6.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Kogaru3.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Geshuku1.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:ScreenDES.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:IKUSApanty01.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Saori05a.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Miko02a.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:LGP02.jpg
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:KissMyAss.jpg

And for the record, he (as TGComix) is banned from ED and pretty-much universally hated over there

Even a stopped toilet is right once in a blue moon... or something...

[Somey]

What the *$&(@ is wrong with WM Commons?! This stuff was pointed out three days ago, there was an almost unanimous agreement to take it down, and then exactly nothing happens?

Still trying to figure this out. Commons seems to be getting more "free-culture-y" than the other wikis, and no one can say why.

Isn't it obvious? What we're seeing here is the downside to their decision to move all images into a separately-administered central "repository," or more accurately, subdomain. What you gain in efficiency, you lose in "mission-adherence," once the subdomain starts to develop its own peculiar culture.

The admins and active users on "Commons" have convinced themselves that they're "curators" of a "collection," and to some extent that's precisely what they are. As long as the images were part of the "encyclopedia project," people could look at an image of a young girl pulling down her underpants and say, we don't need that in our encyclopedia. But since they aren't part of it anymore, anybody can just come along, upload some porn, and say "this image could theoretically be useful to someone on one or more of our 'projects,' so it should stay right where it is." The ensuing argument is inherently opinion-based and invariably goes nowhere, even when the majority of people (faced with a clear moral imperative) want to do the right thing.

This is a classic example, actually - they're not arguing over copyright status here, and their points regarding legality/obscenity are mostly clueless (not to mention US-centric), so they end up arguing about "scope." Which means that porn usually wins, because you can always claim that someone might someday want to use your porn image in an article about, well, porn. To reject such claims amounts to a value judgement against porn in general, and of course, nobody wants that.

[HRIP7]

What the *$&(@ is wrong with WM Commons?! This stuff was pointed out three days ago, there was an almost unanimous agreement to take it down, and then exactly nothing happens?

Still trying to figure this out. Commons seems to be getting more "free-culture-y" than the other wikis, and no one can say why.

Isn't it obvious? What we're seeing here is the downside to their decision to move all images into a separately-administered central "repository," or more accurately, subdomain. What you gain in efficiency, you lose in "mission-adherence," once the subdomain starts to develop its own peculiar culture.

The admins and active users on "Commons" have convinced themselves that they're "curators" of a "collection," and to some extent that's precisely what they are. As long as the images were part of the "encyclopedia project," people could look at an image of a young girl pulling down her underpants and say, we don't need that in our encyclopedia. But since they aren't part of it anymore, anybody can just come along, upload some porn, and say "this image could theoretically be useful to someone on one or more of our 'projects,' so it should stay right where it is." The ensuing argument is inherently opinion-based and invariably goes nowhere, even when the majority of people (faced with a clear moral imperative) want to do the right thing.

This is a classic example, actually - they're not arguing over copyright status here, and their points regarding legality/obscenity are mostly clueless (not to mention US-centric), so they end up arguing about "scope." Which means that porn usually wins, because you can always claim that someone might someday want to use your porn image in an article about, well, porn. To reject such claims amounts to a value judgement against porn in general, and of course, nobody wants that.

Well said.

[Moulton]

With apologies to Joséito Fernández, Julio Iglesias, José Feliciano, and Wyclef Jean

Taking bets now on how long before I'm de-sysopped and banned from Commons

Banhammerama
Guajira Banhammerama
Banhammeraaaama
Guajira Banhammerama

[pietkuip]

Taking bets now on how long before I'm de-sysopped and banned from Commons

Unlikely to happen. Desysopping is rare at Commons. Far too rare.

[pietkuip]

What the *$&(@ is wrong with WM Commons?! This stuff was pointed out three days ago, there was an almost unanimous agreement to take it down, and then exactly nothing happens?

Several of the images that were nominated for deletion are in use, for example on enwp in Panchira. Commons is not going to censor the various language projects.

[Ottava]

What the *$&(@ is wrong with WM Commons?! This stuff was pointed out three days ago, there was an almost unanimous agreement to take it down, and then exactly nothing happens?

Still trying to figure this out. Commons seems to be getting more "free-culture-y" than the other wikis, and no one can say why.

Isn't it obvious? What we're seeing here is the downside to their decision to move all images into a separately-administered central "repository," or more accurately, subdomain. What you gain in efficiency, you lose in "mission-adherence," once the subdomain starts to develop its own peculiar culture.

The admins and active users on "Commons" have convinced themselves that they're "curators" of a "collection," and to some extent that's precisely what they are. As long as the images were part of the "encyclopedia project," people could look at an image of a young girl pulling down her underpants and say, we don't need that in our encyclopedia. But since they aren't part of it anymore, anybody can just come along, upload some porn, and say "this image could theoretically be useful to someone on one or more of our 'projects,' so it should stay right where it is." The ensuing argument is inherently opinion-based and invariably goes nowhere, even when the majority of people (faced with a clear moral imperative) want to do the right thing.

This is a classic example, actually - they're not arguing over copyright status here, and their points regarding legality/obscenity are mostly clueless (not to mention US-centric), so they end up arguing about "scope." Which means that porn usually wins, because you can always claim that someone might someday want to use your porn image in an article about, well, porn. To reject such claims amounts to a value judgement against porn in general, and of course, nobody wants that.

To reinforce your point, don't forget that I was called a disruptive troll for claiming that Commons, as with all wikimedia.org projects, are connected to all other projects and are not independent as they are set up as a central hub for the various people of the various projects to handle their needs. It is interesting how they have their images used by the other projects, and many rules refer to that, but they pretend they are completely independent.




How is this notable? Here is a brief source analysis to show that it might deserve a small mention on the Manga page but nothing more:

1. ^ Aggrawal, Anil (2008). Forensic and Medico-Legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices. CRC Press. p. 134. ISBN 9-7814-2004-3082.
- 1 page, not about the topic itself.

2. ^ Mutranowski, Bill (2003). You Know You've Been in Japan Too Long.... Tuttle Publishing. pp. 109&120. ISBN 9-7808-0483-3806.
- 2 pages, not really authoritative, mentions it as a side note.

3. ^ Akihara, Koji, and Takekuma, Kentaro. Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga. VIZ Media LLC; 1st edition, 2002.
- About drawing manga and the line it cites is original research (synthesis?): "According to Japanese sources, the convention probably started with Machiko Hasegawa's popular comic strip Sazae-san, whose character designs for Wakame Isono incorporated an improbably brief hemline". Notice a lack of a page number for a reason.

4. ^ Koji and Takekuma, Even a Monkey Can Draw Manga.
- Same as above.

5. ^ Millegan, Kris. "Sex in Manga", Comics Journal, 1999.
- No page because it isn't real or from text. It is OR basically.

6. ^ Botting, Geoff et al. Tabloid Tokyo: 101 Tales of Sex, Crime and the Bizarre from Japan's Wild Weeklies. Kodansha Inc (2005) p. 16. It should be noted, however, that Botting also confirms that a "lingerie subculture" had been established during the early Showa era. Largely based around fetishistic photography, this early variant was considered socially unacceptable due the return to traditional Japanese values that took place throughout the 1930s. Strong anti-Western sentiment hastened the subculture's disappearance during the interwar period, as anything suggestive of Western sexual attitudes was regarded as degenerate.
- Lingerie, not "Panchir" and the rest. He is talking about real stuff. Pure OR.

7. ^ Shōichi, Inoue. パンツが見える。: 羞恥心の現代史 ("The Underpants are visible: the history of being ashamed"). Asahi shimbun, 2002.
- Notice a lack of page numbers for a reason.

8. ^ Botting et al, p. 16.
- Not about cartoon versions but about real life "peeping" and "upskirt".

9. ^ Millegan, Kris. '"Sex in Manga", Comics Journal, 1999.
- OR, claiming "sexual imagery" = cartoon underwear emphasis

10. ^ Millegan, '"Sex in Manga".
- Only one line in the whole work (and what is quoted) ever talks about "panchira" - "Boy's comics began to explore "cute" sex, mainly consisting of panchira ("panty shots") and girls in showers" and doesn't even give any actual emphasis.

11. ^ Allison, Anne. Permitted and Prohibited Desires: Mothers, Comics, and Censorship in Japan (1996).
- One tiny line/mention expanded far beyond its original mention. Everything after the colon is all OR explanation for the tiny mention.

12. ^ Allison, Permitted and Prohibited Desires".
- Same as above.

13. ^ "The Dominant Trope: Sex, Violence and Hierarchy in Japanese Comics for Men" by Anne Cooper-Chen, in Comics and Ideology, McAllister et al, 2001, p. 105
- One line throw away statement.

14. ^ Ibid p. 105.
- Same

15. '^ Bryce, Mio: School' in Japanese Children's lives depicted in Manga, p 10.
- 100% original research.

16. ^ Bouissou, Jean-Marie: "Manga goes Global." Paper presented at the University of Sheffield, March, 1998 (p.17)
- Also original research.


This post has been edited by Ottava: Sat 7th August 2010, 1:28pm

[ulsterman]

My personal "we're Wikipedia, we don't need no stinking model consent" low is College Experimentation.png (currently gracing two articles on the Fifth Most Visited Site On The Web).

That photo was taken off Flickr, where it is posted with a CC licence. Is Commons any more at fault than Flickr, or the person who posted it there? I'm not trying to defend Commons, but why don't we ever criticise Flickr?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It also allows Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner to lie convincingly.

They can say, "we don't have any hard core ... animal ... child ... degradation ... S&M ... etc porn on the Wikipedia" which may well be true because they have moved it over to commons.

However, at present it is not true. Like everything else, it is all over the place.


Flickr has no pretension at education or "knowledge". What does Flickr actually do for Yahoo anyway!?!

[Larry Sanger]

It also allows Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner to lie convincingly.

They can say, "we don't have any hard core ... animal ... child ... degradation ... S&M ... etc porn on the Wikipedia" which may well be true because they have moved it over to commons.

However, at present it is not true. Like everything else, it is all over the place.

One solution is to make sure that we use the name "Wikimedia" instead of "Wikipedia" when making generalizations. Let people think half a second about what Wikimedia is, or look it up; and then invite them to hold the WMF accountable for all of it.

[HRIP7]

My personal "we're Wikipedia, we don't need no stinking model consent" low is College Experimentation.png (currently gracing two articles on the Fifth Most Visited Site On The Web).

That photo was taken off Flickr, where it is posted with a CC licence. Is Commons any more at fault than Flickr, or the person who posted it there? I'm not trying to defend Commons, but why don't we ever criticise Flickr?

A fair comment, as far as consent is considered. Once Flickr posters realise that Wikimedia regularly skims off their private snapshots of their friends, perhaps they'll become a little more careful.

On the other hand, remember that Flickr is censored by default. You have to register an account to see moderate or restricted content. Wikimedia is the only big web project that has no such system; if it did, much of the criticism voiced here would become baseless.

This post has been edited by HRIP7: Sat 7th August 2010, 3:00pm

[Eva Destruction]

My personal "we're Wikipedia, we don't need no stinking model consent" low is College Experimentation.png (currently gracing two articles on the Fifth Most Visited Site On The Web).

That photo was taken off Flickr, where it is posted with a CC licence. Is Commons any more at fault than Flickr, or the person who posted it there? I'm not trying to defend Commons, but why don't we ever criticise Flickr?

A fair comment, as far as consent is considered. Once Flickr posters realise that Wikimedia regularly skims off their private snapshots of their friends, perhaps they'll become a little more careful.

On the other hand, remember that Flickr is censored by default. You have to register an account to see moderate or restricted content. Wikimedia is the only big web project that has no such system; if it did, much of the criticism voiced here would become baseless.

What he said. Plus, Flickr (and Facebook, and Photobucket, and all the other copyvio-filled corners of the net) don't claim to be academic resources; and Flickr pages don't have the sheer volume of viewers Wikipedia has (that photo is getting about 200 hits per day on en-wiki alone; on Flickr, it's unlikely to be seen by anyone other than the poster and their friends).

[tarantino]

Midnight68 is also known as Gauis Marius. Some may remember him from the Spanking Art Wiki.

Tyciol has also shown a sudden interest in his works.

Hi Tyciol!