Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: tarantino

There's an all too familiar discussion going on between the cultists at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Stan_Spanker.

"cumshots, facials, collaring, sexual submissiveness, etc are all encyclopaedic and otherwise educational topics ..."
True, for an encyclopedia of porn.http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top have shown that Commons has devolved into a porn site.

"Keep, comments like "The size and shape of the girl's breast suggest that she may be anywhere from 16-20 years old" are so incredibly subjective as to be laughable, it is clear that all of the actors involved are fully developed and through puberty, so there is no possibility of "child pornography"..."
You don't really know that, though, do you? You're just worried http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=upload&user=Max+Rebo+Band&month=&year= may be called into question because there's no model releases indicating your porn uploads are images of people over the age of majority.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Well, well.....nice to see that Thryduulf is still a complete prat.
Some losers never stop losing.

And inevitably, Stillwaterising is sticking the "nose" into this mess. SWR is a longtime friend of gay-pornstar-lovers Benjiboi and Ash.......

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

How can one get across to the rest of society what is going on here ... it is mental illness gone global.

If this was a small town and Jimbo was pursuing his Porno-pedia agenda within it, empower such individuals in creating "consensus" that would then become part of his "education" agenda ... he would have been driven out of town and given a good kicking until he stop a long time ago.

They have unleashed a Golem ... how to stop it?

Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that part of the game is putting stuff forward for deletion knowing it is unlikely to and thereby ensuring its existence as unremovable at a later date.

Posted by: Somey

Some of the WP'ers are voting to delete these images under the aegis of the so-called http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site rule, even though it's fairly obvious at this point that Commons is an amateur porn site (which just happens to have many non-pornographic images too). Of course, anything that threatens the porn supply will be opposed by the usual porn-promoting crowd, but why aren't they seeing this amateur porn stuff as competition for the professionally-produced stuff they're almost certainly being paid to promote, and voting to delete it on those grounds?

This is the "policy" in question:

The word "may" and the term "low-quality" is probably more significant than the fuzzy concept of "educationally useful" in such cases - presumably someone who's looking at a photo of a woman giving some guy a blow job isn't going to think that's "low-quality," right? It's a blow job! How can that possibly be bad? Hey, the more the merrier!

So there's no way they're ever going to stop being an amateur porn site based on "consensus," since the numbers will always be against them. I'd almost be prepared to suggest that they do something like the Olympics did with professional basketball and hockey players, and just let the pros take over - if they were really pros, with proper licenses and tax forms and so forth, at least there might be some expectation that the "models" are of legal age and have had proper STD testing. But let's face it, that won't work either - there's no way the WP'ers could actually verify any of that in each case, and of course they'd be deluged with porn, whereas now they're sort of able to cope with the amount they're getting, at least as far as tagging and categorizing are concerned.

Unlike most things, porn really is an either-or proposition for a public website like WP. You either allow it (and accept the fact that you're basically a porn site purely on that basis), or you don't allow it, at which point you're not a porn site, and you get fewer clicks and page-views. So it's pretty clear that the Wikimedia Foundation knows what they have to do to keep those clicks and page-views a-comin'. They're the only ones who could actually do anything about this, other than courts and legislatures (eventually). Either way, the idea that any of those images could be considered "educational" is simply comical. The likelihood that anyone on that page actually believes that is nil.

Posted by: MZMcBride

The lack of advertising means that, at least directly on paper, they're losing money by attracting more visitors. Or at least that seems reasonable to me. They may be building some sort of "porn clout," but it's not as though it's good porn.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into your comment.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

On the other hand, an increasing percentage all those charitable donations are going to support butt plugs, cum filled vaginas and hardons.

Now that is weird. Charity Porn or Porn Charity?

Posted by: carbuncle

And a dedicated groomer of Heather Harmon, apparently famous for her deep throat skills.

Posted by: the fieryangel

Why are there so many guests on this thread? Is it because of the Fox News article mentioning Mr. Spanker?

Posted by: Killiondude

I would guess so. http://www.google.com/search?q=stan+spanker+commons shows WR coming up as the second result for me.

Posted by: Malleus

That's the kind of article I find incomprehensible. Why would anyone care? What I also find interesting is that my arch-enemy on wikpedia is an administrator who seems to have an obsession with porn stars.

Posted by: thekohser

Mine, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12274! http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/yacht.jpg of them!

Posted by: Somey

Well... I guess if people are reading the thread, then I might as well follow up on this:

It really depends on how clever we think they are, "they" being the Foundation and the more heavily-involved admins and WP users. Are they thinking ahead? Do they have a plan? I prefer not to underestimate them, even though their management style often appears to be to never give anyone the impression that they know what they're doing.

Presumably there are several numbers that bring in money for the WMF, and by that I mean big-donor money. Obviously the biggest is Alexa ranking, and after that they can point to things like pageviews, active-user count by month, new-article count, etc. (Bandwidth costs are obviously an issue, but most of the performance hits are on database writes, not read operations - those are heavily cached, and I assume they're getting into SSD's now too.)

In this particular case, they know they're not going to lose many pageviews by deleting hardcore porn images on Commons, particularly if those images aren't being used in actual en.wp articles. Most of their traffic is through WP articles, not direct clicks into Commons image pages, categories and what-not. So they lose very little there, and in fact, in the short term they're probably seeing a spike in traffic right now as people search Commons to see what the fuss is all about. I doubt it will be enough to place them above live.com for the #5 spot, but it's not out of the question.

In the medium term, it's conceivable once people hear rumors that WP has "cracked down on porn" and that all the "really good stuff" has been deleted, there could be a significant downturn (after the initial spike) that might take them down a notch, maybe even two - but I doubt that, personally. Long-term, who knows? A new porn-delivery technology will eventually come along that would make any and all existing forms of online porn completely obsolete. You just know people are working on it - it's really just a matter of time. There are quite literally billions of dollars at stake.

Meanwhile, the porn situation on WP is really a credibility issue, not a quality issue, and I doubt anyone seriously believes that people have ever browsed WP porn articles and images as a masturbatory aid (at least not a preferred one). Nevertheless, I also suspect there are many thousands, maybe even millions of people out there who might never have known what a "Dirty Sanchez" is, or a "Cleveland Steamer" (among other things), if not for Wikipedia. People also want to know what their favorite pornstars are up to, and so on. As long as WP still carries that kind of information, they should be fine, traffic-wise. Some people will definitely gripe about the deleted stuff, but that won't last - there are just too many other, and better, sources for that sort of material.

Posted by: Lar

Who is that? I didn't know you had just one... (apparently I have several?)