Boy Scouts are for spanking?, More from Wales talk Options

As part of the increasingly incestuous relationship between the Wales page and WR, see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...for_spanking.3F

Mr. Wales, it may be time for you to either pay more attention to what's happening with this Wikipedia/Wikia relationship, or begin setting down some rules at Wikia along the lines of, "Don't embarrass Wikia or the Wikipedia project with your actions on Wikia or Wikipedia." You'll wonder what I'm talking about? I'm delighted to see that Wikipedia has a GFDL image of some boys involved in the Boy Scouts mission. I'm not so delighted to see that photo copied into a Wikia called "Spanking Art", to enhance an article about Boy Scouts that reads:

While nowadays the Scouting movement prohibits the use of corporal punishment as part of its activities, this was not always so, and in spanking stories they often go hand in hand, especially with Beaver and Cub Scouts. There are also some spanking drawings that show young scouts, e.g. by Comixpank.

Because of the connotations of discipline that comes with scouting, some adult spankophiles like to roleplay/ageplay a boy or girl scout (similar to playing schoolboys).

Exactly what kind of perverts are Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation enabling, by allowing them free and unfettered access to simple pictures of boys, that are then twisted and exploited on your for-profit company's website, so that they are interwoven into adult perversions and roleplay?

I know I'm not supposed to link there [direct link to WR, horrors], but you really ought to spend a minute or two reviewing this analysis of what's going on, before you unwittingly spawn a worldwide boycott of Amazon.com, the primary investor in Wikia "Spanking Art", for being a pro-pedophilia corporation. - John Russ Finley (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see he uses the word 'perverts' for which Giano was temporarily blocked, and I was indef blocked. Be careful John.

Is there a reason that you are complaining on Wikipedia when the problem you have is with Wikia? Another site is using our image (or rather the Wikimedia Commons' image) in accordance with copyright in a way that you find inappropriate. There is nothing that Wikipedia can do. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw above that this is the place to praise Mr. Wales for his development of Wikia, Inc. I assumed that it would also be the place to bring criticisms of Wikia to light. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"

Hey and before you unwittingly spawn a worldwide boycott of Amazon.com, the primary investor in Wikia "Spanking Art", for being a pro-pedophilia corporation has got to be a WP:LEGAL if I saw one. I DEMAND a community ban (as Durova argued in my case).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

Noted in another thread, about Wiki-Commons:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15405

This week the hideous Category : Lolita on the commons had a picture of a clearly under-aged girl in its ranks. As stated by Bead, the fact that WP permits this material, without taking even the minimal steps of being COPPA compliant is an outrage.

Cue Taxwoman in 3...2...1...

Actually Finley, if that is who he is, really is heading for a block: this refers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184332213

clearly prompted by this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ohn_Russ_Finley

Cue Taxwoman in 3...2...1...

Roger, that. Thing is, I believe that Taxwoman is a firm believer in the rights of adults to roleplay all they want. I'm not sure she would be so strongly in favor of co-opting and/or exploiting the images of children so that they are "fair game" in the minds of adult roleplayers.

It's one thing for a 40-year-old man to wear a diaper and ask his "mommie" to spank him. It's another thing altogether to find a photo of some 11-year-old Boy Scouts and slap them on a page that's drooling with anticipation of spanking their bare behinds.

I'm sure the Wikipedia/Wikia response will be, "This is our page/photo of Boy Scouts, not theirs. It's our responsibility to police how it is used, and the reputation of our organization(s) outweighs that of the Boy Scouts and even supercedes the privacy of those boys who should have known that the camera was set on 'GFDL mode'!"

It really is astounding, and I hope that Taxwoman weighs in (with this clear distinction between fun and predation).

Greg

It would appear that the photographer of the Boy Scouts image doesn't much care about how the picture is used at Wikia.

Since there is such indifference to this within the Hive, perhaps the twisted minds of Wikipediots would be better persuaded by pointing this out to the Boy Scouts of America, so that they can issue a take-down order to Gil Penchina? Even better, somehow find the moms and dads of the specific boys in the photo and point them to how Jimmy Wales and Amazon see fit to exploit them for the edification of "spankophiles". An angry mom or an outraged dad is far more potent than a DMCA take-down notice!

Jimbo hasn't responded yet, but I wonder how Metros and Rlevse would react if the photo chosen for a page in Spanking Art happened to be a GFDL image of little Kira Wales?

Greg

Oh, great.

Now we have the Spankish Inquisition.

Even better, somehow find the moms and dads of the specific boys in the photo and point them to how Jimmy Wales and Amazon see fit to exploit them for the edification of "spankophiles". An angry mom or an outraged dad is far more potent than a DMCA take-down notice!

That's a very good point and seems completely lost on the photographer who is presumably a scoutmaster of some kind. Both my children are in the scouts and if I found out that someone in the scouting organisation had taken their picture and had allowed it to go onto a site like this I could not be held responsible for my actions. Also, I know the parents who act as guardians and governors of local and national scouting groups, whose job it is to keep a watchful eye on things, would be extremely concerned if they knew about this.

What is extraordinary is how oblivious they seem to be on that page. And on this one, I suspect. Problem is, it is all very jokey and funny in one sense, then you realise it is real children, real parents, and real perverts involved in it all. Thanks for keeping on about this.

Obliviousness precludes advancement to the Ethics of Care.

It's one thing for a 40-year-old man to wear a diaper and ask his "mommie" to spank him. It's another thing altogether to find a photo of some 11-year-old Boy Scouts and slap them on a page that's drooling with anticipation of spanking their bare behinds.

I checked out the strange spanking-related Wikia site and found this page

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Panty_shot

which is utterly sick - little girls being spanked. How much do we have to complain before, say, the police get called in?

Or this

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Gauis_Marius

I mean, words fail utterly. Has Amazon been told?

Or this

http://images.wikia.com/spankingart/images/d/d4/Park.jpg

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

I warned them! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The Joy

It's one thing for a 40-year-old man to wear a diaper and ask his "mommie" to spank him.

At least one wikipedia admin is like that.

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Cmxpack.jpg

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's really all you need to know about Wikia in one picture.

I still don't understand why the wiki- and pedo- worlds seem to cross so much.

I still don't understand why the wiki- and pedo- worlds seem to cross so much.

Some unfortunate people wish to act, hidden from society's identification of them and without responsibility or attribution, on their innermost desires for personal gratification regardless of the harm they may bring to innocent lives.

Sounds exactly like a Wikipediot admin working on a BLP and a pedophile working on a neighbor's 7-year-old.

Amazon's investor relations contact is: ir@amazon.com.

Greg

I still don't understand why the wiki- and pedo- worlds seem to cross so much.

In normal, healthy life, there are diligent organizations and regulations developed to protect the vulnerable from predatory behaviour such as the above.

But in Jimboland, which is dominated by a privileged but naive class with no idea of the margins many people live on in real societies, these necessary regulations are no doubt deemed "censorship". They are rejected out of hand, resulting in a revival of practices that haven't seen the light of day in civilized society for decades. This doesn't really impact this privileged class so what do they care?

On the ground, away from the Florida poolside dreamers, a culture further disintegrates. And the people who don't bask in Jimbo's internet bonanza, and who don't get to go to Press dinners with Richard Branson, get it in the neck. Same old story of hubris and exploitation.

In normal, healthy life, there are diligent organizations and regulations developed to protect the vulnerable from predatory behaviour such as the above.

But in Jimboland, which is dominated by a privileged but naive class with no idea of the margins many people live on in real societies, these necessary regulations are no doubt deemed "censorship". They are rejected out of hand, resulting in a revival of practices that haven't seen the light of day in civilized society for decades. This doesn't really impact this privileged class so what do they care?

On the ground, away from the Florida poolside dreamers, a culture further disintegrates. And the people who don't bask in Jimbo's internet bonanza, and who don't get to go to Press dinners with Richard Branson, get it in the neck. Same old story of hubris and exploitation.

BINGO.

A few more comments on Wales' page suggesting some people are now 'getting it'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...for_spanking.3F

On the other hand this one

Since the image is not being used commercially, and the boys are not recognizable celebrities, there can not be any personality rights issues involved in the U.S., where the First Amendment unequivocally permits all non-commercial publications of photographs that don't infringe on statutes, as protected speech. However, IANAL. MilesAgain (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"

clearly isn't getting it.

1. There are various laws protecting use of children's images 2. Even if not actually illegal, and that can always be tested, there is 'reputation risk'. (Everyone here will laugh at that one, but the point is, only people here, for now, are getting the joke).

This one is really going to run. Has anyone posted the panty-shot and cub-shout one on the Wales page. I sadly can't.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

Maybe David Shankbone (i.e. resident wikid reporter of spanksings-ons) can write up a report for Wikinews!!!

See

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Web_group

Web groups, however, can also cause much frustration because practically all hosts (such as Yahoo! or MSN) regularly delete groups hosted by them without a warning or giving a reason. Such a deletion can be a catastrophe for the group's members -- like a bomb out of a blue sky it extinguishes all files, postings, the list of members, and all other content the group may have built in years of work, without any way to recover any of it. On inquiry, if they do reply at all, they will usually send a standardized reply that says the group "violated their Terms of Service" without specifying any details.

Hurrah for Wikia then!

Maybe David Shankbone (i.e. resident wikid reporter of spanksings-ons) can write up a report for Wikinews!!!

Is that Elonka with the glasses, then?

And it finally dawns on Rlevse

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...alk:Jimbo_Wales

that something ver' wrong here.

And now someone is really really getting it.

Jimbo, in his capacity with Wikia, certainly has the power to get rid of the image even if the use is legally permissible. I am not a lawyer either so I don't know if the use is permissible, but I'm certainly concerned about the possibilities. What do you think the odds are that any person involved in Scouting is going to contribute any Scouting-related photo if a company owned by Jimbo Wales is going to misuse those photos? I can tell you that if this photo stays up, I have contributed my last photo to Wikimedia projects. If this were a third party using it, ok, there isn't much that can be done, or at least whining about it here isn't going to accomplish anything. But it's a company founded/owned/run/whatever by Jimbo and he certainly has the power to do something about it. It's a question of moral obligations. I cannot speak to the legal obligations of personality rights - I am not a lawyer. --B (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Teh penny drops

The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

well done for bringing this out into the open - I think it's both important and urgent, and have tried to bring it to the attention of people at wikback.com.

I also took the photo out of the article because I realised I could, and really don't think it should be there a moment longer than it has to.....

I think we'll see the closure of that wiki before too long (today, hopefully) - but time will tell.....

PM

I don't really like WAS 4.250 now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Long time troller, first time poster.

I think people are confusing a number of issues here: the only issue that I see as relevant is Wikia hosting an objectionable wiki. It should probably stop doing so right away; certainly that's what I'd do if I was Wikia.

But this has nothing to do with the relationship between Wikimedia and Wikia (incestuous thought it may be; I'm not sure). It has nothing to do with people who take photos for Wikimedia being betrayed, any more than it would if somebody totally unconnected with Wikimedia or Wikia took a free picture they found on Wikipedia and used it for nefarious purposes. There may also be laws preventing the appropriation of minors' images like this; I hope they are. But it's still just an issue of Wikia hosting something objectionable.

You guys are arguing against freedom. Against free speech. Against free culture. Against the free reuse of media. Against WikiMedia and Wikipedia. Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186211884

That's pretty much what we should expect these people to say (see my last post in this thread). That's what they are like. They are naive extremists with no clue how society works.

That's why a lot of us are here on this site. To try and stop these irresponsible ideologues from further disfiguring our societies and our culture.

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/banner3.jpg)

Privatemusings leading the charge!

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Boy...emoved_material

You guys are arguing against freedom. Against free speech. Against free culture. Against the free reuse of media. Against WikiMedia and Wikipedia. Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186211884

That's pretty much what we should expect these people to say (see my last post in this thread). That's what they are like. They are naive extremists with no clue how society works.

That's why a lot of us are here on this site. To try and stop these irresponsible ideologues from further disfiguring our societies and our culture.

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/banner3.jpg)

Until outside pressure comes to bear in sufficient measure winning minor battles against this kind irresponsibility will do no good. The material will just seep back in, worse next time.

I checked out the strange spanking-related Wikia site and found this page

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Panty_shot

which is utterly sick - little girls being spanked. How much do we have to complain before, say, the police get called in?

Or this

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Gauis_Marius

I mean, words fail utterly. Has Amazon been told?

Or this

http://images.wikia.com/spankingart/images/d/d4/Park.jpg

You missed the inevitable appearance of That Kid in Africa®:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Chicotte

Still working on why the picture adds "encyclopedic" value...

This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy:

This isn't just any wiki either, it's like a FEATURED WIKI or something or other.

Anyway, I registered and joined in the fray. On a related note, check out the CAPTCHA image I got...

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/pimps.jpg)

Does the sexual depravity of wiki-world know any bound?

Maybe David Shankbone (i.e. resident wikid reporter of spanksings-ons) can write up a report for Wikinews!!!

Man, the chick doing the spanking in that photo looks an awful lot like Elonka Dunin? Could that be her????

It seems Wikia is now acting on the complaints.

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...506&oldid=20505

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...&action=history

You guys are arguing against freedom. Against free speech. Against free culture. Against the free reuse of media. Against WikiMedia and Wikipedia. Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere.

If speech is so free, why am I indefblocked from Wikipedia?

You guys are arguing against freedom. Against free speech. Against free culture. Against the free reuse of media. Against WikiMedia and Wikipedia. Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere.

If speech is so free, why am I indefblocked from Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is not censored, an experiment in democracy, or a forum for free speech.

What? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Man, the chick doing the spanking in that photo looks an awful lot like Elonka Dunin? Could that be her????

Naah, the tip of her nose doesn't even come down halfway to her upper lip, much less all the way down.

It's interesting that the woman's face in that photo hasn't been distorted to hide her identity, whereas the woman in photos 1 and 3 of the same Shankbone series have been:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S%26M_D...d_Shankbone.jpg

And what is that on the right side of the shot, underneath the restraining device? A porta-potty seat? And in the sixth in the series, in the magazine rack in the center of the photo, there's a proudly-displayed copy of... ENSLAVED? Just what the hell is going on with these people?

On the positive side, in the eighth photo in the series, there's a handy "End of Session Checklist" tacked to the wall behind various whips, chains, etc.... I'm thinking of making a copy for my own office, except for the part about "leaving the radio on (something - probably 'classical' - or jazz) at a reasonable volume." In my office, the volume must always be unreasonable.

You just can't make this stuff up...

Man, the chick doing the spanking in that photo looks an awful lot like Elonka Dunin? Could that be her????

Naah, the tip of her nose doesn't even come down halfway to her upper lip, much less all the way down.

It's interesting that the woman's face in that photo hasn't been distorted to hide her identity, whereas the woman in photos 1 and 3 of the same Shankbone series have been:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S%26M_D...d_Shankbone.jpg

And what is that on the right side of the shot, underneath the restraining device? A porta-potty seat? And in the sixth in the series, in the magazine rack in the center of the photo, there's a proudly-displayed copy of... ENSLAVED? Just what the hell is going on with these people?

On the positive side, in the eighth photo in the series, there's a handy "End of Session Checklist" tacked to the wall behind various whips, chains, etc.... I'm thinking of making a copy for my own office, except for the part about "leaving the radio on (something - probably 'classical' - or jazz) at a reasonable volume." In my office, the volume must always be unreasonable.

You just can't make this stuff up...

This had me convulsed with laughter for a second. Then laughter ceases, because laughter is the problem here. To laugh is just a way to dismiss something that is really quite serious, when you follow it all through (e.g. the cubs being spanked).

On the 'potty', if you follow the links on the photo to Wikipedia, it is all explained here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_toilet

This also explains the checklist bit about 'clearing up' and 'disinfecting'.

[edit] OMG

This may or may not include some consumption of the material, consumption of which may carry health risks

Fancy that. All very Wikipedia isn't it with the warning about the health risks.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

If I ever have to buy that much equipment to get off, I'll kill myself.

Also I wish someone in Wikimedia could obscure a face without it looking ridiculous. I'm sure everyone's seen this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Childhood_Obesity.JPG

In the UK, any adult has to be CRB checked (including my 18 year old daughter who has been in the sea scouts for several years and is now a helper). That is jargon for going to the criminal records bureau. That came about because of the Soham murders especially, where it turned out that a person who had come to the attention of the police several times had not been checked when applying to be a school caretaker.

Naively, but having being watching the zoophilia debate (shudder!) I have been CRB checked for being a guide dog puppy walker. It slowly dawns that it is not a joke after all.

The UK Scouting Organisation goes to great lengths to ensure there is a rigorous process to ensure not just physical safety on expeditions, but that there is also a process for parents to be reasonably confident that the people in charge of scouting groups are suitable, including parent helpers who would now be CRB checked even if going along to help with a supervised expedition.

If that was a picture of an English boy scout, the national organisation would be absolutely horrified and would take all possible measures to identify the person involved and ensure they were removed from the scouting organisation. I am not sure what the International relationship is between the organisations, but I am fairly sure that I could contact the right people in the UK to put pressure on both Wikia and The Scouting Association in America.

I am acutely aware that going public with the media is likely to go in the wrong direction: I am a great supporter of the Scouting Movement as a worthy organisation which has been a tremendous help to my family and I would hate this to end up harming them rather than Wikia.

I want to contact the UK movement, but I am not sure I can frame the right wording to translate the technicalities into plain English. Could we work together to come up with a standard letter? Basically it needs to say, "Watch out. Wikia is hosting material which both brings the scouting movement into disrepute and appears to be condoning and encouraging violence against children and sexual abuse."

I am assuming there is little point raising this with the UK police, though I am aware there is a UK branch of Wikia. It would be very interesting to know the legal position.

And in the words of Wikipedia, for all those Wikipedians browsing this, that is a legal threat. You are damaging an organisation I am proud for my family to be involved with. Pass the message on - this will get nasty.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

My estimate is that about 30% of the content of Wikipedia brings some agency, idea, organization, movement, or person into disrepute.

Is it any wonder Wkipedians are worried about what might bring them or their project into comparable disrepute?

any adult has to be CRB checked

Yes absolutely my wife has to do so to help at local school.

The UK Scouting Organisation goes to great lengths to ensure there is a rigorous process

Yes again. My friend is on board of governors of local scouts. He takes the view that everyone is potentially suspect. So they keep a very tight watch, and mums and other parents go along. And a wonderful thing too - inner-city kids like ours get to go camping in the mud and build things &c. Incidentally my father was one of the first boy scouts before the first World War & left me a beautiful certificate.

But this now raises some interesting questions. The one under the real pressure here is not Wales or Wikia, but the poor guy Rlevse who is likely to be facing some difficult questions. I don't know whether to feel sorry for him or not. What makes me not feel sorry is that he feels no personal responsibility at the point here (from his talk page):

FYI, one of your images is being discussed at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Boy_Scouts_are_for_spanking.3F. --B (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, see the "Boy Scouts and spanking (PR disaster)" thread above. I took the pic, so yes I can release it. And no the boys aren't ID'd. Anything I need to do hear? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Then he clearly notices the Jimbo page:

Also, does Metros believe that User:Rlevse (the photographer) explained the GFDL to these 11- or 12-year-olds, and did they comprehend it? Does Rlevse have the authority to release the photo without permission from the 5 boys' parents? [...] I've notified the three regional chapters of the Boy Scouts in the San Francisco / San Jose area (headquarters of Wikimedia and Wikia).
Where I chillax (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And realises the problem is with him and 5 angry parents. Then the pleading tone starts

Sent email, posted this "The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. If such use is condoned, I will no longer submit images of children to wiki." — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it can be legally done doesn't mean it should be done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand (look at the correspondence this has generated among the Wikipedia scouting fraternity) I think they are probably going to deal with this themselves. Wales is not going to alienate a whole section of the enyclopedia who are doing generally good things, just to humour a bunch of perverts.

OK enough is enough. I have just found this

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Category:CC-BY-SA_images

which contains (among other things) these

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:800px-Pigtails.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:BP_Bed_Time.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Baby_tub.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:BP...ng_in_a_Row.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Ba...by_roguebfl.png

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Between_Friends.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Behind_the_Door.jpg

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Cute_japanese.jpg (yuk)

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Ja...white_dress.jpg (double yuk)

I think the police need to know. Can anyone help me out here on who to contact?

But this now raises some interesting questions. The one under the real pressure here is not Wales or Wikia, but the poor guy Rlevse who is likely to be facing some difficult questions.

...and after a naive start it has dawned on him that what probably started out as a flippant position about rights was actually a discussion about how he was supporting paedophilia. My guess is he is someone who thought he was doing the right thing in promoting the scouts, and hadn't thought it through. We all make mistakes and I would not want to target any individual who did something like this by accident. (Very different from the likes of say FT2 and his studied manipulation).

I don't think Jimbo really understands ethics and consequences.

The unintended consequence of this is not that there is a strong likelihood of them being stalked and abused, but that their school mates come across this and in one play time of merciless teasing, their lives become unbearable as they become the latest target for bullying (cue Pink Floyd - The Wall). Children commit suicide over less.

OK enough is enough. I have just found this

I think the police need to know. Can anyone help me out here on who to contact?

The trouble is, that, having had a quick skim through, they appear, as individual images, generally to be quite innocent (used advisedly). It is the context that makes the problem.

The unintended consequence of this is not that there is a strong likelihood of them being stalked and abused, but that their school mates come across this and in one play time of merciless teasing, their lives become unbearable as they become the latest target for bullying (cue Pink Floyd - The Wall). Children commit suicide over less.

Yes, absolutely. Given all this (and our publicity not helping) they should just take the picture down, but need to think through, as you have done.

What REALLY gets me though, is boring old farts concerned-parent types like me (and possibly you) are the ones who get banned (for momentarily losing one's cool and threatening legal action), the teenagers and older-but-colder sinister types like FT2 get to stay, and get promoted moreover. That really gets to me. Why is it the scouts-type organisations positively welcome the old-fart type (that's all we are here on earth for, now), but Wikipedia bans us? Why is that? (hard to type when angry, going now).

And look at all this nicey-nicey stuff on Roguebfl talk page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roguebfl

Excuse please, really sorry, but do you mind &c (mindful of Wiki-equitette &c).

Excuse me!! This Roguebfl is the one who made half the drawings of little half-naked girls and uploaded the rest onto Wales' website. Excuse me!! So sorry for causing him offence.




This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

I see he uses the word "perverts" for which Giano was temporarily blocked, and I was indef blocked.

Yes, Wiki(a)pediots maintain a Wikiproprietary interest in the brand name «Wikiperverts»™ — they are jealous to Wikiprotect and zealous to Wikipreserve their Xclusive rights to it.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

These are just all disturbing really:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Lawrence...elected_Gallery

Man, the chick doing the spanking in that photo looks an awful lot like Elonka Dunin? Could that be her????

Naah, the tip of her nose doesn't even come down halfway to her upper lip, much less all the way down.

It's interesting that the woman's face in that photo hasn't been distorted to hide her identity, whereas the woman in photos 1 and 3 of the same Shankbone series have been:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S%26M_D...d_Shankbone.jpg

And what is that on the right side of the shot, underneath the restraining device? A porta-potty seat? And in the sixth in the series, in the magazine rack in the center of the photo, there's a proudly-displayed copy of... ENSLAVED? Just what the hell is going on with these people?

On the positive side, in the eighth photo in the series, there's a handy "End of Session Checklist" tacked to the wall behind various whips, chains, etc.... I'm thinking of making a copy for my own office, except for the part about "leaving the radio on (something - probably 'classical' - or jazz) at a reasonable volume." In my office, the volume must always be unreasonable.

You just can't make this stuff up...

Different kinds of offensiveness, IMO.

What consenting grown-ups do is often good for a snigger, but hey, grown-ups are grown-ups. It would be a positive step for wikipedia/wikia to hive all this kind of content into separate sub-domains where it can easily be blocked by school and corporate firewalls, but they are blinded by a wooly ideology that will prevent them from defusing this particular timebomb.

The images of brutality and the crypto-paedophilia are a different matter. From the irrelevant nudity to the self-rationalising statements that victims want to be punished, the spanking site supports getting off on abuse of the non-consenting vulnerable, and it deserves to be crushed.

Wikia needs a good spanking.

Different kinds of offensiveness, IMO.

What consenting grown-ups do is often good for a snigger, but hey, grown-ups are grown-ups. It would be a positive step for wikipedia/wikia to hive all this kind of content into separate sub-domains where it can easily be blocked by school and corporate firewalls, but they are blinded by a wooly ideology that will prevent them from defusing this particular timebomb.

The images of brutality and the crypto-paedophilia are a different matter. From the irrelevant nudity to the self-rationalising statements that victims want to be punished, the spanking site supports getting off on abuse of the non-consenting vulnerable, and it deserves to be crushed.

I think I am with you, with some qualifications. Like, I assume, most people, one's interest gets piqued as to what is out there. We live in a world where the sex industry has become accepted - Ann Summers on the High Street, lap dancing clubs an acceptable destination for a boy's night out. It seems OK.

If you've seen stuff like Louis Theroux on the American sex movie trade, you realise that not all adults that give their consent have thought through the reality of what they have got into. And in my "Peter Townsend"-like research it is clear that there are people taking part either under duress or by being misled. Adults need protection too.

Where do Wikipedia fit in with this? Their "not our fault" uncensored approach seems fine on the surface, but the problem is that as an encyclopaedia it is seeking to be an authoritative source.

It needs to be understood that you can't use Wikipedia in schools because it is uncensored, not because it is unreliable. That is not just looking up rude words in a dictionary but it is presenting information which has the potential to mislead impressionable minds. The combination of uncensored and wrong presents a quite disturbing problem.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

So Wikipedia is no good for kids because it's not censored and no good for adults because it's unreliable.

So Wikipedia is no good for kids because it's not censored and no good for adults because it's unreliable.

We'll there was meant to be an and in my comment rather than an exclusive OR. I am looking for the Firefox "Write what I mean, not what I type" enhancement to the spell checker.

What is ludicrous is that anyone defends this stuff. This has far more of a potential to cause problems for Wikipedia than Essjaygate, Durovagate, etc.

It's the same reason that President Clinton was impeached for Monica, not for Whitewater - you don't need a grad degree to understand it.

Not everyone has the attention span to understand most Wikipedia scandals, but everyone can understand, (1) Scout leader contributes photo for Wikipedia article on Boy Scouts, (2) company run by the same people who run Wikipedia takes said photo and uses it for site that advocates child abuse. And whereas it doesn't really affect your life if Essjay lied about his identity, if you have children, this one bothers you.

I'm hopeful that Wikia is going to do the right thing and get rid of this trash of a page. Part of the problem is that so many people in the "free content" movement don't live in the real world. They're willing to justify any abhorrent behavior under the title of "freedom".

If Wikipedians believed in academic freedom, they wouldn't routinely ban academics.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

I don't understand how copyright and honoring the ethics of personal privacy, especially of pre-pubescent minors, are somehow antithetical to "freedom". People are also "free" to organize boycotts of Amazon.com (#1 investor in Wikia) and to organize boycotts of donating to Wikimedia Foundation. Let's take a poll -- which do you think would win out in the court of public opinion? The fight for copyleft freedom, or the fight against online sites that promote a pro-pedophilia and pro-child-abuse agenda? Choose your sides, people. This is going to be a quick, decisive battle. - Where I chillax (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you making threats? EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, someone now heading for a block on WP:LEGAL? This is just idiocy.

[Edit] Pennies dropping like mad, now:

Here's a frightening idea: let's say one of these kids or one of their parents happens to come across this photo. What is going to happen is the children in question will probably be quite upset, possibly affected psychologically, and the parents will be infuriated and go on the warpath. That's when lawsuits, phone calls to the press, and massive "what about the children?" drives begin. If anyone thinks Wikia can protect themselves by hiding behind the GFDL and copyleft they're sadly mistaken. Can they do so legally? Perhaps. But the ensuing massive bad publicity has the potential to bring the entire project (and any related projects) to its knees. It doesn't matter what is right under the law, it only matters how the public sees you. [[User:Nobody of Consequence|Nobody of Consequence]] ([[User talk:Nobody of Consequence|talk]]) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(All from the Wales talk page)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

"Here's a frightening idea:"

(All from the Wales talk page)

Did they have the idea themselves or did someone take my/our big hint?

This has the potential to be damaging to Wikipedia, but really it is Wikia Inc. that has the issue in this specific case, they have created the most inappropriate environment, and it is an environment without even the checks and balances of Wikipedia.

In a way, this seems to be the right thing. Wikipedia could now take the hint and put in place policies to put it's own house in order - a community decision of "Not censored but ethical" and those responsible for Wikia take the hit instead.

However, what would be really important is that if something did blow up, the content is hidden quickly. Unfortunately, that will not happen, it will already be cached and copied around the world.

What does one do? If you bring it to the public's attention, there is a good chance of someone really getting hurt (at least mentally), if you don't, the rot continues until the next event and there are more potential victims.

OK enough is enough. I have just found this

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Category:CC-BY-SA_images

which contains (among other things) these

[...]

Whoa...pretty disturbing stuff. There seem to be a lot of pictures which I would characterize as sexulization of children. Seems to be a lot of that on this particular wiki. Whether that is true or not doesn't really matter, that is the appearance. Wikia is a business and appearance means a lot. Which makes me wonder if all of our time exposing the ills of Wikipedia as a whole is misdirected, since as a non-profit, "revolutionary" exercise it is more of an abstract thing, which compromises the practice of making criticisms that resonate with those outside of "internet culture".

However, this "spankingart" deal is very easy to understand. A lot of tech reporters have Jimbo's page watchlisted, but this is a story that would practically write itself and be very accessible to readers of mainstream media.

My thinking in directing criticism at Wikia content is "as Wikia goes, so goes Wikipedia".

I'm hopeful that Wikia is going to do the right thing and get rid of this trash of a page. Part of the problem is that so many people in the "free content" movement don't live in the real world. They're willing to justify any abhorrent behavior under the title of "freedom".

Welcome, B! Very good comments. I do not think the problem is just this article, though. The entire wiki seems to be infected.

But on to your point about "free culture": I was going to post this on Wikipedia, but did not want to hear the same type of hair brained arguments that you currently are receiving: Is "free culture" essentially at odds with certain moral principles, such as not sexualizing children? WAS is stating that doing anything about this is somehow a detriment to free culture...and in effect he is alienating those who find this abhorent.

Which would inevitably bring about the argument that one man's "moral depravity" (to quote Fred Bauder in an unrelated arbcom) is another man's good time--at which point the conversation is over, since this boils down to abuse of children, not something like promoting drug use, which may be unsavory, but it is in a different category. In fact, I think that promoting abuse of children (and appearance thereof) is in its own category--right along side promoting the murder of innocent people. I do not want to believe that this is what "free culture" supports. There has to be a line somewhere, however fine.

I'm waiting for a famous Jimbo quote. I think things will go something like this:

• Jimbo Wales states: "I find it GFDL compliant and don't really have a problem with it."
• Jimbo issues an apology, stating that he "really didn't look into the issue at hand"
• Jimbo deletes the "spankingart" wiki, himself
• In an unrelated issue, Jimbo finally hires Mr. T to finish the WMF audit come hell-or-high-water.

At what point are we ready to say this thread constitutes a legal threat and deal with it accordingly? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a new category of Wikipediots, but WikiOstriches doesn't scan.

At what point are we ready to say this thread constitutes a legal threat and deal with it accordingly? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a new category of Wikipediots, but WikiOstriches doesn't scan.

How I wish it were actually uncommon to creatively redefine things in that way...

At what point are we ready to say this thread constitutes a legal threat and deal with it accordingly? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a new category of Wikipediots, but WikiOstriches doesn't scan.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that a certain segment would like to ban us because we don't want a photo of Boy Scouts to be used to promote pedophilia.

Personally, I don't care why Jimbo gets rid of the photo - he can do it because because the wiki is morally repugnant, he can do it because a respected admin and content author asked him to, or he can do it for legal reasons. I'm not concerned with his motivation. I only care that the photo be removed. If he removes the page or the entire wiki, that's even better.

If these were your kids or they were kids you work with, I seriously doubt you would approve of their photos being used in this way.

I'm waiting for a famous Jimbo quote. I think things will go something like this:

• Jimbo Wales states: "I find it GFDL compliant and don't really have a problem with it."
• Jimbo issues an apology, stating that he "really didn't look into the issue at hand"
• Jimbo deletes the "spankingart" wiki, himself
• In an unrelated issue, Jimbo finally hires Mr. T to finish the WMF audit come hell-or-high-water.

Bobby, you're brilliantly bombastic. I give item #1 a 35% chance. Item #2 is a 70% chance. Item #3 is a 5% chance in the next 48 hours, but a 90% chance in the next 6 months. Item #4, I'm afraid, is only a 6% chance, since Mr. T is really, really tough to book outside of his appearance schedule.

And, the bafflingly mindless, robotic responses continue on Jimbo's talk page:

Are you saying that an image on WikiMedia servers breaks the law? If so, which image breaks which law? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you daft? Do you not know the difference between the words "moral" and "legal"? How could you possibly respond to what I wrote with what you wrote, unless you are utterly trying to deflect this discussion to some arcane aspect of the situation that you can "win"? I'm done with trying to engage in finding a solution here. Let the authorities and the lawyers figure it out. I'm sure that perverted individuals who are exploiting youngsters will win the day. - - Where I chillax (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At what point are we ready to say this thread constitutes a legal threat and deal with it accordingly? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

*beep* "morality" does - not - compute. *beep* must - be - legal - threat. *boop* *beep*

With people that dumb, it's a wonder how something that even looks like an encyclopedia ever got written!

Greg

The free information movement needs to consider beyond just the legal ethics of their actions. There are issues here that will not go away just because it's "legal via the GFDL".

Of course, this forum has been advocating that position since Daniel Brandt's attempts to get his WP Bio removed.

Are we increasingly living in a world where you can get away with anything as long as you can argue for it successfully in a courtroom? Do we no longer care about hurting people?

The worst quote is by WAS 4.250 who writes in defense of Wikia after the child abuse expose:

I have no objection to anyone trying to get Wikia to only promote good things. What I objected to is attacks on the legal tool of copyleft copyrights which is needed in the fight for freedom.

WAS 4.250 uses the language of a political warfare. They are "POV pushing" against the world.

It's interesting that the woman's face in that photo hasn't been distorted to hide her identity, whereas the woman in photos 1 and 3 of the same Shankbone series have been:

Image:S&M Dungeon 3 by David Shankbone.jpg

I'm guessing it's a case of «Face Redacted» to obscure the fact Mistress Alex is really a guy.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Nobody of Consequence: Is that our No one of consequence?

Y'know Wikia has terms of service against excessive vulgarity and nudity due to being supported by Google Ads. Someone should contact Google and notify them of this as well. No doubt Brandt knows how to get ahold of them?

Aha, someone now heading for a block on WP:LEGAL? This is just idiocy.

Heading for? Economics Guy is already angling in this direction for the entire thread:

At what point are we ready to say this thread constitutes a legal threat and deal with it accordingly? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the lack of a single explicit/implicit hint in the thread, EG is quite happy to be "proactive" in shutting down possible awkwardness.

My response:

I don't think at any point - I'd like you to point to any part of this thread where anyone has said, explicitly, or implied (even as far as "innocent queries about editing Wikipedia from a Department of Defense computer"), the involvement of any law enforcement authority. Or are you angling for the "chilling effect" of ensuring people don't rock the boat too much? Because I can't see a single point at which you could say "this thread needs to be shut down as a legal threat". Quite simply, it ain't there. Achromatic (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'know Wikia has terms of service against excessive vulgarity and nudity due to being supported by Google Ads. Someone should contact Google and notify them of this as well. No doubt Brandt knows how to get ahold of them?

http://naked.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Heading for? Economics Guy is already angling in this direction for the entire thread:

And why has he posted a 'trolling' notice at the top of Wales' talk page? He seems concerned that this is unrelated to Wikipedia. But this Wales' talk page, and Wales is not just Wikipedia. And why is complaining about this disturbing imagery called 'trolling'?

I have never been sure of the meaning of 'Trolling' but doesn't it have connotations of bad faith? I am a concerned parent and fully condone those who have been upset by this, and have commented on Wales' page likewise. Why are they, and by implication me and my family, being called 'trolls', i.e. deceivers and liars? Very angry, once again.

[edit] oh I see the trolling template has just been removed. Well done that person.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

Heading for? Economics Guy is already angling in this direction for the entire thread:

And why has he posted a 'trolling' notice at the top of Wales' talk page? He seems concerned that this is unrelated to Wikipedia. But this Wales' talk page, and Wales is not just Wikipedia. And why is complaining about this disturbing imagery called 'trolling'?

I have never been sure of the meaning of 'Trolling' but doesn't it have connotations of bad faith? I am a concerned parent and fully condone those who have been upset by this, and have commented on Wales' page likewise. Why are they, and by implication me and my family, being called 'trolls', i.e. deceivers and liars? Very angry, once again.

[edit] oh I see the trolling template has just been removed. Well done that person.

The word Troll has a long history in UseNet, as I am sure you are well aware, there it simply means someone deliberately making provocative statements to provoke a response.

However, in WikiLand, it has taken on a more sinister overtone. To be labelled a troll seems to mean that:

* You have an agenda to destroy Wikipedia
* Whatever you say is a lie, regardless of what you said
* You are irredeemable
* Any apparently reasonable action you take is a smoke screen to allow for vandalism in the future.
* You will take every opportunity to stalk an editor in real life
* In real life you are an axe-wielding child molester* murderer

The implication is that you are therefore fair game for vilification and banning.

You get labelled a troll by using a user's talk page. (I was going to say "make critical statements" but in the paranoid world of WP, conciliatory gestures are always misconstrued). Anyone who attempts to use reasoned discussion to resolve issues, rather than jumping to the obvious conclusion that you are a troll, is therefore a troll-enabler. A troll-enabler is slightly worse than a troll.

See MONGO for the most obvious exponent of the Troll-Manoeuvre. He even documents some of his logic here User:MONGO/Comments

* Not necessarily an issue for all Wikipedians

I think the Spanking page are having an Ely*. I was just composing an email to the Scouting Association, and checking some links and saw the brand new "Non-violence against children" policy (so new it is still red-linked) together with a brand new "Non-violence policy."

However, reading their non-violence policy, they still have the major hole: it seems is not illegal to have pictures of children being spanked in Florida, therefore it is OK. Here it is at the moment, (created in 2 and a half hours yesterday). I've highlighted some points, but note the opening paragraph is doublespeak.

The Spanking Art wiki is an encyclopedic project. POV (point-of-view) contributions (personal opinions, etc.) are not permitted in the article namespace, only on user and discussion pages.
In particular, no part of any article in this wiki may condone or encourage violence against children (or adolescents or adults, for that matter). This includes any form of abuse – physical, emotional or sexual.

If you find any contents that violates this policy, please edit it, either by deletion or by properly marking the passage as an attributed or quoted POV.

Permissible contents

Note that it is perfectly permissible, however, to write factual NPOV information on the spanking of children. It is also allowed to quote POV statements provided that proper quoting practices are followed. Established facts should be stated as such, preferably with a citation, and opinions should be clearly identified as such. When there are several clearly identifiable opinions or points of view on a subject, all should be given, with properly identified sources.

Note that we also explicitly allow the uploading of legal pictures of children getting spanked, whether these are fictional drawings, rendered art or photographs. Legal means that the picture is not obscene (as defined by Florida law, where Wikia resides) and that there is no copyright or license violation. The same applies to legal pictures of adolescents or adults getting spanked, and to adult BDSM images.

Examples

* sentence that condones or encourages violence against children -> not permissible
* sentence that says that there was violence against children in history -> ok
* sentence that says that there is violence against children in the world today -> ok
* sentence that quotes someone who condoned or encouraged violence against children -> ok
* any obscene or pornographic photo -> not permissible
* non-obscene photo that documents violence against children (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of a nude adult or child (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of human body parts, including genitalia (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene fictional drawing of violence against children (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of a recognisable person (e.g. this) -> ok, but the person may object to how their photo is used (see personality rights)
* any photo or drawing under fair use claim -> not permissible
* any copyrighted photo or drawing without a free license -> not permissible

So we see that there is now an acknowledgement of personality rights, but that the hand drawn picture of smacking a troop of boy scouts is still fair game. Hurmmph! Personaility rights is red linked as of now.

From The Meaning of Liff: An Ely being that uncomfortable feeling that you get when you know something is going horribly wrong, but you are not yet sure what it is.

Hm -

(Deletion log); 09:45 . . Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (deleted "Image:ScoutFun.png": Sorry, but no.)

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...ser=Jimbo_Wales

The draft policy quoted by dogbiscuit above leaves the timebomb in place with the "recognisable person" example - how many potential PO'd parents are out there, and how many of them will be forthcoming with the lawyers...?

Florida isn't actually a particularly liberal state where standards for obscenity are concerned; it's the state that declared rap group 2 Live Crew obscene (at the urging of morality crusader attorney Jack Thompson, who's currently obsessing on video games), and also convicted cartoonist Mike Diana of making obscene drawings.

What does Florida have to do with Wikia, Inc.?

Nothing.

Wikia has offices in San Mateo, California and New York City in the US, and in Poznań in Poland. Remote staff are located in Chile, England, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and also in other locations in Poland and the US. The company is incorporated in Delaware.

The reason Florida is even mentioned is that these dip-wads think that Wikia is the Wikimedia Foundation, which they think is Wikipedia, which they think is Jimbo Wales, who used to live in Florida. Nitwits.

...
Examples

* sentence that condones or encourages violence against children -> not permissible
* sentence that says that there was violence against children in history -> ok
* sentence that says that there is violence against children in the world today -> ok
* sentence that quotes someone who condoned or encouraged violence against children -> ok
* any obscene or pornographic photo -> not permissible
* non-obscene photo that documents violence against children (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of a nude adult or child (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of human body parts, including genitalia (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene fictional drawing of violence against children (e.g. this) -> ok
* non-obscene photo of a recognisable person (e.g. this) -> ok, but the person may object to how their photo is used (see personality rights)
* any photo or drawing under fair use claim -> not permissible
* any copyrighted photo or drawing without a free license -> not permissible

What kind of legal terms document uses the word "ok" to describe the permissibility of various offensive contents? Answer: one written by an anoymous spankophile obsessed with children who thinks Wikia is in Florida.

Taboo Or Not Taboo.

That Is the Question.

(Deletion log); 09:45 . . Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (deleted "Image:ScoutFun.png": Sorry, but no.)

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...ser=Jimbo_Wales

We should probably wait for BobbyBombastic's analysis, but I predict that this will be Jimbo's only action on this particular Wikia for at least a week. Right now, in his mind, he thinks he's solved the entire problem with this commercial space of his.

I'll just remind Jimbo here, that the boycott will proceed if he doesn't do something about the following (et al), as well:

***Pictures Removed***

(If you must see them, to see the magnitude of the Wikia Spanking Art problem, you may click this link.)

Sorry to include the images, but I believe it really needs to be underscored -- society has a problem with that site. The whole site needs to be shut down, but Jimbo thinks deleting one picture of Boy Scouts will buy him cover. It won't.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

I see this has just appeared here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186489660

written by our friend WAS 4.250.

The history of the full frontal nude pic of this naked girl who has been badly burned at the top of this article about her Phan Thị Kim Phúc might be relevant to your concerns on Jimbo's web page. WR is trying to stir up trouble by throwing mud everywhere and seeing what will stick. Frankly at some point the WikiMedia Foundation might have to sue some of these WR clowns for defamation. Greg in particular seems eager to defame Jimbo for financial profit. I thought he was smarter than that. Maybe he figures any publicity is good publicity, even a defamation lawsuit. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So Wales is going to sue one of us?

[Edit] Greg, I don't think you should be uploading those pictures above - they are now on this site, right? I have no problem with links, people can choose to or not, but with the pictures they can't choose, also the pictures are now hosted here. Plus I find the 'Bella at bathtime' particularly distressing - that is someone's little girl there. Just wait for Wikia to delete them, as I am sure they will in time.

This post has been edited by Kato:

I see this has just appeared here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SqueakBox

written by our friend WAS 4.250.

The history of the full frontal nude pic of this naked girl who has been badly burned at the top of this article about her Phan Thị Kim Phúc might be relevant to your concerns on Jimbo's web page. WR is trying to stir up trouble by throwing mud everywhere and seeing what will stick. Frankly at some point the WikiMedia Foundation might have to sue some of these WR clowns for defamation. Greg in particular seems eager to defame Jimbo for financial profit. I thought he was smarter than that. Maybe he figures any publicity is good publicity, even a defamation lawsuit. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So Wales is going to sue one of us?

Throw mud and see what sticks - well couldn't deny that... but it is mud.

Defamation? Wikia are hosting a site that at this point in time is clearly promoting violence against children. Child porn, well, perhaps one needs to be circumspect on that as it is not a clear definition (and in the UK it is not a defence to say "That's not what I meant").

Wait. Is that a legal threat*? Where is EconomicsGuy. When is someone going to say enough is enough and invoke WP:LEGAL? No didn't think so, in this context.


*By the Wikipediot definition, of course.

BTW, I agree about being dubious as to the wisdom of hosting that picture (on Wikipedia Review). You are inadvertently repeating the "libel" of those pictures in that context. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Further, no GFDL as far as I can see. That is something an ex-Wikipedian can understand as a reason to remove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

So Wales is going to sue one of us?

[Edit] Greg, I don't think you should be uploading those pictures above - they are now on this site, right? I have no problem with links, people can choose to or not, but with the pictures they can't choose, also the pictures are now hosted here. Plus I find the 'Bella at bathtime' particularly distressing - that is someone's little girl there. Just wait for Wikia to delete them, as I am sure they will in time.

I'm too conflicted to make the decision on editing them in or out of my post, but I respectfully defer to whatever is decided by the admins of this board.

Pro: Seeing the collage helps visitors to see just how immoral is the "Spanking Art" Wikia site, and may motivate them to action.

Con: The concerns you raise directly above.

If Jimmy decides that his time, energy, and money are best spent suing me, I will bear that burden.

Meanwhile, how is it that WAS 4.250 can say, "Greg in particular seems eager to defame Jimbo for financial profit. I thought he was smarter than that. Maybe he figures any publicity is good publicity, even a defamation lawsuit", without EconomicsGuy coming in and recognizing it as a "legal threat"?

Greg

I'm too conflicted to make the decision on editing them in or out of my post, but I respectfully defer to whatever is decided by the admins of this board.

Greg

I think the danger is also you acquire a minor version of the Pete Townsend problem: what you have done in the name of "research" could be problematic. It didn't work for Pete "writing a musical" Townsend and it didn't work for Chris "writing a comedy" Langham.

BTW, I agree about being dubious as to the wisdom of hosting that picture (on Wikipedia Review). You are inadvertently repeating the "libel" of those pictures in that context. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Further, no GFDL as far as I can see. That is something an ex-Wikipedian can understand as a reason to remove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I'm not doing anything inadvertently, dogbiscuit. The page is served under the terms of the GFDL, per the note at the bottom, and attribution is directly under the photo: "A collage of images found on the 'Spanking Art' Wikia at http://spankingart.wikia.com, a site owned in large part by Jimmy Wales and funded by Amazon.com ($10 million)." This is more attribution than Wikipedia's most dedicated admins often bother to give.

If any of the original holders of the copyright to those images wishes to issue a complaint to me, I will gladly respond according to the law. They will have to identify themselves, of course. Of course, Wikia, Inc. has no claim against me for re-serving the GFDL images. The AUTHORS of those images have claim, not the HOSTS.

I realize I am taking some risk here. I feel that the temporary unpleasant solution is dwarfed by the long-term need to expose and eradicate sites like Spanking Art and the admins who defiantly run them.

Greg

BTW, I agree about being dubious as to the wisdom of hosting that picture (on Wikipedia Review). You are inadvertently repeating the "libel" of those pictures in that context. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Further, no GFDL as far as I can see. That is something an ex-Wikipedian can understand as a reason to remove. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I'm not doing anything inadvertently, dogbiscuit. The page is served under the terms of the GFDL, per the note at the bottom, and attribution is directly under the photo: "A collage of images found on the 'Spanking Art' Wikia at http://spankingart.wikia.com, a site owned in large part by Jimmy Wales and funded by Amazon.com ($10 million)." This is more attribution than Wikipedia's most dedicated admins often bother to give.

If any of the original holders of the copyright to those images wishes to issue a complaint to me, I will gladly respond according to the law. They will have to identify themselves, of course. Of course, Wikia, Inc. has no claim against me for re-serving the GFDL images. The AUTHORS of those images have claim, not the HOSTS.

I realize I am taking some risk here. I feel that the temporary unpleasant solution is dwarfed by the long-term need to expose and eradicate sites like Spanking Art and the admins who defiantly run them.

Greg

OK, as long as you are clear in your own mind as to exactly why you are doing that.

The GFDL comment was tongue in cheek, but on a serious note, it is no good claiming that and them presenting the images embedded here without an obvious attribution appearing, if we were being pedantic souls (as if we would be here (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ).

[Edit]I see you have taken it out from being inline.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

WIKIPEDIA REVIEW IS THROWING UP MUD

Dear Geniuses,

It's your own damn fault that YOU READ THIS WEBSITE AND CHOOSE TO ACT ON IT and to blame us for discussing here on a private forum is just not smart.

-- Miltopia

A final recap: After much discussion here, the Boy Scout page on Spanking Arts was chopped, Wales deleted the image from their site and the SA folks created a new policy on images. The Scouting WikiProject is drafting a project guideline that notes the potentials for reuse of images in ways the photographer may not have intended. As there is no way to control reuse of images, we are recommending that editors do not upload images of youth. This reverses a personal push for more active images with Scouts to replace a lot of the boring images we currently have of buildings and empty waterfront areas.

There was an awful lot of discussion here about freedom, guns and other tangent subjects. Please understand that the Scouting WikiProject has no desire to attempt censorship; most of our editors are volunteer members of one of the myriads of national Scouting organizations around the world. We must answer to local and national laws, the rules and regulations of our organizations and each editor's moral compass. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the start of a sensible response, well done Gadget: we at WR must give gredit where credit is due.

It sets a tone where other people need to consider this in the light of BLP and it needs to be clear that anyone putting a picture of a living person (or other work) on Wikipedia has not just exposed it to merciless editing, but potentially to merciless abuse.

A really good response would be an open debate on Wikipedia about the issue. There is probably a compromise position where people are able to put up pictures with a limited licence which could be enforced by the exporting software.

I'll just remind Jimbo here, that the boycott will proceed if he doesn't do something about the following (et al), as well:

***Pictures Removed***

(If you must see them, to see the magnitude of the Wikia Spanking Art problem, you may click this link.)

Sorry to include the images, but I believe it really needs to be underscored -- society has a problem with that site. The whole site needs to be shut down, but Jimbo thinks deleting one picture of Boy Scouts will buy him cover. It won't.

I reckon the pictures are a lot more disconcerting in their context on the spanking site, where the anchorage is what makes them abhorrent - consider the sequence on the top row of http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Category:CC-BY-SA_images

a girl with panties around ankles, being beaten
+ a dildo
+ a baby in diapers
+ a bottle of lubricant
= ?

Jimbo's got some risky characters using his servers and bandwidth here, and decisive action is still lacking.

BTW, I agree about being dubious as to the wisdom of hosting that picture (on Wikipedia Review). You are inadvertently repeating the "libel" of those pictures in that context. :mellow:

Further, no GFDL as far as I can see. That is something an ex-Wikipedian can understand as a reason to remove. :rolleyes:

I'm not doing anything inadvertently, dogbiscuit. The page is served under the terms of the GFDL, per the note at the bottom, and attribution is directly under the photo: "A collage of images found on the 'Spanking Art' Wikia at http://spankingart.wikia.com, a site owned in large part by Jimmy Wales and funded by Amazon.com ($10 million)." This is more attribution than Wikipedia's most dedicated admins often bother to give.

If any of the original holders of the copyright to those images wishes to issue a complaint to me, I will gladly respond according to the law. They will have to identify themselves, of course. Of course, Wikia, Inc. has no claim against me for re-serving the GFDL images. The AUTHORS of those images have claim, not the HOSTS.

I realize I am taking some risk here. I feel that the temporary unpleasant solution is dwarfed by the long-term need to expose and eradicate sites like Spanking Art and the admins who defiantly run them.

Greg

Dogbiscuit is right, I think.

Books about child abuse sometimes contain pictures showing
physical injury done to children by their abusers. But they
generally do something to obscure the identity of the child,
like put a black rectangle over their eyes.

Seriously, could you please do something like that to the two
pictures of children whose faces are showing? Pretty please?

It sets a tone where other people need to consider this in the light of BLP and it needs to be clear that anyone putting a picture of a living person (or other work) on Wikipedia has not just exposed it to merciless editing, but potentially to merciless abuse.

It's not just Wikipedia, but Flickr or any other site that encourages the use of a free license i.e. Creative Commons. Then again, even if you upload a pic reserving all rights that won't protect your pics from being used by people who pay no attention to licenses (but it would prevent your pic being used on any Wikimedia project).

A really good response would be an open debate on Wikipedia about the issue. There is probably a compromise position where people are able to put up pictures with a limited licence which could be enforced by the exporting software.

Any content on Wikimedia projects have to be able to be used by anyone for any purpose- that is the libertarian ethos at the heart of the project. No Wikimedia projects will accept limited licenses, i.e. wikipedia only, non commercial, or no derivatives.

Seriously, could you please do something like that to the two
pictures of children whose faces are showing? Pretty please?

That is a great idea, AB. It's done. Do you think I've sufficiently obscured their faces to help protect their identity?

Greg

Seriously, could you please do something like that to the two
pictures of children whose faces are showing? Pretty please?

That is a great idea, AB. It's done.

Thank you. : )

Now you just need to delete the original version of the collage.

Do you think I've sufficiently obscured their faces to help protect their identity?

Greg

I am not a lawyer, but I do feel better about it now.


This post has been edited by AB:

Original image is deleted (even from my personal hard drive). Faces obscured. And a list of very reasonable demands cited under the picture. I'm feeling much better about this. Thanks for the collaborative input, WR.

"Less mud, more good."

It sets a tone where other people need to consider this in the light of BLP and it needs to be clear that anyone putting a picture of a living person (or other work) on Wikipedia has not just exposed it to merciless editing, but potentially to merciless abuse.

It's not just Wikipedia, but Flickr or any other site that encourages the use of a free license i.e. Creative Commons. Then again, even if you upload a pic reserving all rights that won't protect your pics from being used by people who pay no attention to licenses (but it would prevent your pic being used on any Wikimedia project).

A really good response would be an open debate on Wikipedia about the issue. There is probably a compromise position where people are able to put up pictures with a limited licence which could be enforced by the exporting software.

Any content on Wikimedia projects have to be able to be used by anyone for any purpose- that is the libertarian ethos at the heart of the project. No Wikimedia projects will accept limited licenses, i.e. wikipedia only, non commercial, or no derivatives.

You are quite right, and to be fair it is not a Wikipedia problem per se. However, I do not see that a libertarian ethos has to be at odds with an ethical ethos, as essentially with liberty comes responsibility. If that means having to have a think about the licensing then so be it. We expect our work to be used responsibly - the suggestion that it is quite acceptable to be used irresponsibly does not occur. Victimless freedom, not absolute freedom.

I think I have been quite naive as to the downside of the creative commons licence - and indeed the implications of publishing anything on the Internet. Typing "your favourite dubious sexual activity" into Google brings more than enough hard core porn to make you assume that a few innocent pictures amongst the mass of other stuff leaves you safe.

In my own defence I don't think I have ever before seen the true implications of what was meant to be a good thing. It would be interesting to here the views of the creators of the licences (i.e. the original thinkers) who might be interested. How could they justify this, or resolve this?

My other thought is that there is a neutral news story on this that we, as responsible people, could generate on the back of this episode (regardless of other agendas and avenues). It does not have to be an attack piece, we simply use the example. We can even note the responsible answer from the Scouting Project when the implications of what had happened occurred.

Original image is deleted (even from my personal hard drive). Faces obscured. And a list of very reasonable demands cited under the picture. I'm feeling much better about this. Thanks for the collaborative input, WR.

"Less mud, more good."

: )

I was actually thinking it would be better to put the demands
over the picture. You know, so people who don't scroll down
wouldn't get the wrong idea. Sadly, I don't know if this is
possible with MediaWiki software.

So I guess we'll just have to hope that the word 'sickness'
in the title is enough for those people to get it.

I guess another idea would be to put words of protest in the
black spaces on the side of the collage. You could put 'End
violence against children' in the upper left hand corner, and
'Shut down Wikia' in the upper right hand corner.

A really good response would be an open debate on Wikipedia about the issue.

Because.....

... that happens all the time....

A really good response would be an open debate on Wikipedia about the issue.

Because.....

... that happens all the time....

Good point, Disillusioned Lackey.

Digbiscuit, you realise many of us are banned from WP?
And those who aren't might be if they pointed out WP's
lack of ethics on WP itself?

A really good response would be an open debate on Wikipedia about the issue.

Because.....

... that happens all the time....

Good point, Disillusioned Lackey.

Digbiscuit, you realise many of us are banned from WP?
And those who aren't might be if they pointed out WP's
lack of ethics on WP itself?

Sorry, it was a more pointed comment, I do know the context. It would be a good response, but I really doubt it would happen.

Every now and again I assume that Wikipedia is redeemable and instead of shouting a stream of TLAs at each other, that they could gather their collective wit and think something through. I know I appear slow and foolish to some of the mighty minds around here, but I was brought up in the 60s when the future was something to look forward to, rather than fear. There's no harm in wanting Wikipedia to be a Good Place, is there?

That's a rhetorical question, right AB?

Because if you have to point that out........

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

That's a rhetorical question, right AB?

Because if you have to point that out........

:blink:

I was confused about Dogbiscuit's meaning. I thought that Dogbiscuit
was suggesting that we go over to WP and protest there.

If a person were confused, and thought that WP was about free speech,
and didn't ban people over political disagreements, and subsequently
did not know that many of us are banned or would be banned if we
expressed our views there, that person might think it cowardly of us to
protest here, from the safety of our own site, rather than do WP the
courtesy of yelling at them to their faces.

Which, as it turns out, isn't an option for many of us, and wouldn't remain
and option for long for those of us who do have said option if we actually
exercised it.

[I was actually thinking it would be better to put the demands
over the picture. You know, so people who don't scroll down
wouldn't get the wrong idea. Sadly, I don't know if this is
possible with MediaWiki software.

Yes and no. You can make a table and put the image and the text in the same cell (?) but it's not something easily done with MediaWiki, so no, not without directly editing the image.

Thank God, this may be coming to an end.

The User:Spankart on the Spanking Art Wikia seems to be on a massive deletion campaign, removing dozens of images of "contemporary minor"s.

This is a wonderful thing. I don't care if Spankart came to his own senses, or whether Jimbo applied pressure. It's happening. It's changing.

Good for them.

Of course, WAS 4.250 is still deranged:

This is the sort of nonsense that WR was trying to create in the first place. Child actors, faces in a crowd, etc. Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, WAS -- this wasn't about WR creating anything. This was about WR appropriately reacting to an abomination.

The only remaining things I'd like to see happen are continued COMPLETE removal from all Wikias of anything that condones violence against children or any unwilling adult, an apology from Wikia, Inc. that this ever was tolerated in the first place, and some assurance that they will be more vigilant moving forward.

Free speech and free licenses stop at the boundaries of derogatory and dehumanizing frameworks, violence, abuse, and crime.

It's quite simple. WAS 4.250 apparently disagrees. Probably too much Jimbo-juice at the last meet-up.

Greg

WIKIPEDIA REVIEW IS THROWING UP MUD

Dear Geniuses,

It's your own damn fault that YOU READ THIS WEBSITE AND CHOOSE TO ACT ON IT and to blame us for discussing here on a private forum is just not smart.

-- Miltopia

Miltopia put it perfectly, so I'm reiterating his comment for the brain dead fools such as WAS 4.250 to comprehend.

Although, I know why WAS used such language, because we do hold a certain amount of influence, and some people are scared of that.

As of this minute, the page for http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Fr..._The_Tracks.jpg is still there in the wiki, but the image itself is gone from the server - suggesting there's been an enforced deletion of the files, from which spankart is now mopping-up the orphan pages.

Good-oh.

I think they still have some more work to do if they want to avoid the Boy Scouts of America suing them, but at least personally-identifiable minors have (presumably) been removed from the database.

How do others feel about a comic such as those by Comixpank?

Also, I notice that the FastClick.net-served skyscraper advertisements (the ones from Verizon, Microsoft, Pizza Hut, and such) have been disabled on the entire site (except for one South Beach Diet ad that I saw pop up on one page out of a few dozen). Sounds like Jimbo & Co. actually do fairly swiftly recognize a PR nightmare when it impacts their commercial interests. Can't say the same for Wikipedia, however.

Greg

I think they still have some more work to do if they want to avoid the Boy Scouts of America suing them, but at least personally-identifiable minors have (presumably) been removed from the database.

How do others feel about a comic such as those by Comixpank?

Also, I notice that the FastClick.net-served skyscraper advertisements (the ones from Verizon, Microsoft, Pizza Hut, and such) have been disabled on the entire site (except for one South Beach Diet ad that I saw pop up on one page out of a few dozen). Sounds like Jimbo & Co. actually do fairly swiftly recognize a PR nightmare when it impacts their commercial interests. Can't say the same for Wikipedia, however.

Greg

I'd be more of the view that it has dawned on him (or he has been advised) that he has a legal issue rather than simply a PR issue.

Well done all, WR has made a difference. However, that was just one battle and it is pointless if the next example (which no doubt already exists) is simply hosted off wiki and there is no wider understanding.

My feeling is: let this calm down. Wait till the nasty stuff is gone so there should be no collateral damage, then feed this back up the news chain as to what just went on with the aim of bringing a better awareness to the wider public of the implications of the licensing of sensitive information.

I'm in the IT industry, and I don't trust it with the easy stuff like running a business, why would we trust it with something more difficult like this?

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

I feel that Comixpank is pure pedocruft; why else would an adult draw or read comics of children being spanked bare-ass if not for sexual arousal?

I thought I'd echo here Greg's comments over at wikback - that some good has come of our efforts, which is to be welcomed.

For the record, I did talk about this with sannse (in her capacity as a wikia representative) - she was very helpful, and assures me that discussions continue. I've asked them to consider just closing the wiki - which I hope will happen as soon as possible - as well as editing the actual page itself, I've emailed Jimbo, Angela, Sannse and the NSPCC (a child protection charity) in the UK the following message;

Hello,

I'm writing to you in the hope that I might solicit some advice about the content of a website which has unsettled me. The website is called 'Spanking Art' and it is a "wiki" (website which anyone can edit) hosted by the company Wikia, which is a 'for-profit' company created by Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of the famous 'Wikipedia'.

Wikia themselves are also somewhat troubled by the site, and are considering what best to do - they have currently disallowed all photos of living children being added to the site, and I am asking them to consider shutting it down altogether for the following reasons;

* The content of the wiki can be reasonably categorised as marginal / extreme
* Categorised as a sexuality wiki, it contains drawing and computer generated images of children being spanked, and nudity;
o http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Cmxpack.jpg
o http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Shower#Shower_spanking
* I believe it to be reasonable to have deep concerns over the context of this imagery
* In my view, the wiki also runs the risk of facilitating social networking between editors whose common interests may include images even closer to the legal knife edge, or beyond.
* I do not have sufficient faith in the ability of the community to police itself through the available 'back channels'


I'd really appreciate any advice you may be able to offer, and have copied this mail to 'Sannse' who is a Wikia representative who has been very helpful in discussing these issues,

best regards,
PM.

I also emailed the author of this pic - a rather nice picture which was disturbingly juxtaposed with adult imagery at the 'nudity' page. He responded quickly - though briefly; "I'm not very pleased seeing my photo in this kind of site.". - that puts my actions over this one firmly 'on the record' - and kudos for Wikipedia Review clearly picking this one up and doing good work quickly. I'm very pleased that this record exists here.

thanks,

PM.

Of course, WAS 4.250 is still deranged:

This is the sort of nonsense that WR was trying to create in the first place. Child actors, faces in a crowd, etc. Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, WAS -- this wasn't about WR creating anything. This was about WR appropriately reacting to an abomination.
...

It's quite simple. WAS 4.250 apparently disagrees. Probably too much Jimbo-juice at the last meet-up.

Greg

WAS isn't even disagreeing, as such, he's trying to stir the BADSITES cavalry into action. It wasn't anything short of intentional disingenuity as to what the concerns were, only "Look out, the WR trolls think you shouldn't be free!" Several responses to him explaining the problem were only met with more "THE TROLLS! THE TROLLS!"

I thought I'd echo here Greg's comments over at wikback - that some good has come of our efforts, which is to be welcomed.

Indeed. Mr 'Spankart' has been very busy removing things last night.

http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?tit...&action=history

Well done WR.

[Edit update]

Checking here:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Category:CC-BY_images

it seems like all the really offending images (i.e. pictures of children) are gone, so left with a rather mild, though still rather sick, spanking site. Thanks to Greg for his efforts (note some of the discussion on Jimbo's page appears to have been a sock, at least according to Wikipedia). Residual issues:

1. The cub-spanking picture is still there. Has to go.

2. Wales has not apologised. Indeed, he has not commented at all.

3. Likewise, the role of WR has not been recognised in this, apart from some people calling us 'trolls'.

4. There remains a spanking site on Wikia, next door as it were to sections used by children (such as the Thomas the Tank Engine and other 'kiddie' parts. I'm not comfortable with this, but then this is an internet issue. For example, LiveJournal used by kids (and I use it for discussion of medieval Latin, it is a good site), but also has sections devoted to heroin abuse, zoophilia, coprophilia, paedophilia &c.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

I think those naughty people at Wikia deserve a good hard spanking and I nominate Taxwoman to administer it (and myself as observer to see that justice is done (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) )

With regard to my comment on the appropriate response being an open debate at Wikipedia, I am pleased to see that some have raised a mature response to the issue. Sometimes we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings. Let's see whether Wikipedia can cope, or whether the more deranged thinkers hold the fort.

I would have thought it at least worth a mention on the Village Pump.

I'd like to throw this out here for discussion. First off, thank you Jimbo for deleting the image. Your willingness to step in is appreciated. I'd like to suggest as a project, we reexamine our licensing policy concerning identifiable images of persons under 18. (Identifiable means that it is zoomed in enough on a person's face that you could recognize that person if you saw them on the street.) We really ought to either permit these images to be licensed under a more restrictive licensing scheme that prohibits sexually explicit reuse OR we need to require parental informed consent to be logged with OTRS. I recognize that the former probably isn't going to happen, but the latter definitely should. --B (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of nonsense that WR was trying to create in the first place. Child actors, faces in a crowd, etc. Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At issue is NOT the rights of the contributor. In every case, Scouters who have contributed these photos are doing so with the willingness that their contributions be used or adapted, commercial or otherwise, etc. The rights of the contributor aren't an issue. It's about the rights of the children depicted in the photo. Either (a) we need to protect their rights or (b ) we need to make sure that their parents have given informed consent to the use of the photo. Neither the photographer nor Wikipedia has the authority to permit you to use a photo of someone else's child for sexually explicit purposes. That's a legal fact of life and we need to spell that out somewhere. Informed parental consent is the direction I'm leaning. --B (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Every comment you have made in this thread, WAS 4.250, seems to be an effort in making people appear draconian for demanding curtailing of contributor rights. You have invoked spurious appeals to emotion, "Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere." and such, in an effort to derail the discussion from what it was about - that there are, ethically, morally and legally, more peoples rights involved than that of the contributor. Personality and likeness rights - even if, from all interpretations of your comments - you have decided that such rights are inherently trumped by your rights - certainly an interesting approach to take. Even when it has been repeatedly explained that the issue is the right of an unintended/potentially unwilling subject to be depicted in a manner of their choosing, your responses have been predominantly along the lines of "ZOMG, the WR trolls are hounding down the GFDL! Slavers!", seemingly deciding instead that it's not the message that's important (or not), but the messenger. Achromatic (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WAS: that was the best framing of this simple point "Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything." and all CC sites need to write that in blood on every submit key. There is a big difference between being edited mercilessly and that. Perhaps I'd phrase it more:

Don't contribute if you don't want your contribution to be under a free license that can be used by anybody for anything that might be worse than you could ever imagine.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

I've asked them to consider just closing the wiki - which I hope will happen as soon as possible - as well as editing the actual page itself, I've emailed Jimbo, Angela, Sannse and the NSPCC (a child protection charity) in the UK the following message;

Hello,

I'm writing to you in the hope that I might solicit some advice ...

* I do not have sufficient faith in the ability of the community to police itself through the available 'back channels'

I'd really appreciate any advice you may be able to offer, and have copied this mail to 'Sannse' who is a Wikia representative who has been very helpful in discussing these issues,

best regards,
PM.

Wow, privatemusings! I wish that I had the ability to contain my outrage and write a civil, thoughtful, polite-but-firm missive such as yours above. Kudos to you. We'd make a good team -- I'd be the "crazy-he-just-might-crack-this-time" one who gets the common people fired up, and you'd be the "now-speak-with-my-attorney-to-iron-out-the-details" guy who makes sure the right thing actually gets done.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Greg

...we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings...

Every comment you have made in this thread, WAS 4.250, seems to be an effort in making people appear draconian for demanding curtailing of contributor rights. You have invoked spurious appeals to emotion, "Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere." and such, in an effort to derail the discussion from what it was about - that there are, ethically, morally and legally, more peoples rights involved than that of the contributor. Personality and likeness rights - even if, from all interpretations of your comments - you have decided that such rights are inherently trumped by your rights - certainly an interesting approach to take. Even when it has been repeatedly explained that the issue is the right of an unintended/potentially unwilling subject to be depicted in a manner of their choosing, your responses have been predominantly along the lines of "ZOMG, the WR trolls are hounding down the GFDL! Slavers!", seemingly deciding instead that it's not the message that's important (or not), but the messenger. Achromatic (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Achromatic! You rebutted WAS 4.250 in about the best possible, most intelligently thoughtful way I could have imagined.

I am truly inspired how people have stepped up and hit home runs on this issue.

One didn't think you'd have to dream up crazy scenarios to understand the truly deranged interpretation of GFDL "rights" that exist within some Wikipediot minds. Example, I wonder how WAS 4.250 would feel if someone took a headshot picture of a security guard at the Pentagon, released it under the GFDL, then a terrorist took that image to create a fake ID, also released under the GFDL, that would then be printed and used by a suicide bomber to gain access to the Pentagon building?

I can see WAS 4.250's response, "While the actions of the bomber are to be regretted, nothing about the free dissemination and modification of that image violated any laws that I see, and therefore, Wikipedia is AWESOME."

Greg

With regard to my comment on the appropriate response being an open debate at Wikipedia, I am pleased to see that some have raised a mature response to the issue. Sometimes we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings. Let's see whether Wikipedia can cope, or whether the more deranged thinkers hold the fort.

It would be preferable to have a dialog between WMF and responsible actors outside of WP. The "community" has demonstrated that it is incapable of appropriate editorial restraint. Nothing is ever settled within the WP "community." Even if the do the right thing those opposed to restraint will only regroup and return to reimpose irresponsible content.

With regard to my comment on the appropriate response being an open debate at Wikipedia, I am pleased to see that some have raised a mature response to the issue. Sometimes we should remember that the majority of people on Wikipedia are sane human beings. Let's see whether Wikipedia can cope, or whether the more deranged thinkers hold the fort.

It would be preferable to have a dialog between WMF and responsible actors outside of WP. The "community" has demonstrated that it is incapable of appropriate editorial restraint. Nothing is every settled within the WP "community." Even if the do the right thing those opposed to restraint will only regroup and return to reimpose irresponsible content.

Agree entirely.

This hasn't played out yet. Part of the interest is that They know they are being watched, and surprisingly perhaps, have recognised that there is a real issue and have acted in a responsible manner. For example, the Cabal stayed out of it, rather than, hey guys, Incoming, man the barricades.

There is something else that has happened. WR may still be labelled as a bunch of fruit cakes, but the message has been acknowledged this time. To be fair(!) the subject was raised there first, but the pressure came from here. It is useful because it is harder to reconcile WR == BADSITE.

Small steps in the right direction. Give credit where it is due - and then aim higher.

thanks for your comment, Greg! - I think your moving fast and hard on this was a good thing too - and to be honest, the fact that Jimbo and Wikia reacted fairly quickly (and will hopefully go further....) seems to show that they agree with you too.... good on us!

The NSPCC replied, and recommended I also email the UK's Internet Watch Foundation which I have done - and I've copied sannse in on that too.

we'll see what happens....

It would appear that our celebration of dramatic progress may have been premature. Some of the "gotta have our child abuse art, since it's not real kids" proponents are holding their ground.

I can't wait to see the screen shots of Verizon "blowout sale" adverts next to the room full of Cub Scouts getting beaten red to a state of tears. That should be really positive for Jimbo's revenue stream.

Greg

This is the nexus of the whole thing Greg. The grand flaw in the dippy dreamer ideology exposed large. Having removed the photographs, the "Freedom" fruitcakes won't want to compromise any further and remove the clearly distasteful drawings. They'll scream censorship and make emotive points drawn from some high school debate.

But the Jimbos of this world also want to make money, lots of it. And though he's not interested in scruples or social responsibility (the guy set up Bomis babes for chrissake), a lot of people are. He's caught in the middle where he has to compromise or lose money.

Either be known for running a site carrying sketches of children being abused amidst a host of gratuitous sado-masochistic imagery, or face reality like everyone else and realize that you are part of society. Either take responsibility to protect the vulnerable in society, or tolerate abuse.

This is why Libertarians like DanTobias end up talking out of their back sides.

When reality bites, they have no answer.

You are confusing libertarianism with Objectivism. Libertarianism in this context only means that you have no right to make Jimbo take down the site. Which you don't. Making a judgement that the site shouldn't be taken down is not the libertarian view (that social responsibility shouldn't be enforced by law), it's the Objectivist view (that social responsibility is at best unnecessary, at worst immoral).

Sorry that I'm touchy about this, but I'm pretty libertarian myself, and I certainly don't defend this.

After being blocked after 4 minutes of discussion on the Wikia IRC channel, I've just spent the last 3 hours making a PowerPoint presentation that easily has the potential to go uber-viral (1,000,000 e-mails in 48 hours) and could be presented "Giano style" on YouTube.

I have sent it privately to two members of this board whom I trust for critique.

It is not a legal threat of any kind, but it will cripple Wikia where it counts -- at the ad dollar source.

Wikia should be scared. Very scared.

I have a board meeting all morning Saturday. I may be communicating with America on Saturday afternoon. One million moms and dads should be no problem by Monday afternoon.

Greg

After being blocked after 4 minutes of discussion on the Wikia IRC channel, I've just spent the last 3 hours making a PowerPoint presentation that easily has the potential to go uber-viral (1,000,000 e-mails in 48 hours) and could be presented "Giano style" on YouTube.

I have sent it privately to two members of this board whom I trust for critique.

It is not a legal threat of any kind, but it will cripple Wikia where it counts -- at the ad dollar source.

Wikia should be scared. Very scared.

I have a board meeting all morning Saturday. I may be communicating with America on Saturday afternoon. One million moms and dads should be no problem by Monday afternoon.

Greg

This is all going to be v interesting. Hope YouTube doesn't take it down (but that would be very telling, wouldn't it)

[edit] just tried to connect to the SA server and it is temporarily down, hmm. Note it was up just after Greg posted his message up. Went down 10 minutes later.

[edit] no, it's back up. Must have been 'glitch'. Good, because I was looking forward to this afternoon.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

This whole brouhaha (I'm with the AP writer. The story has no legs) reminds me of when I asked a photographer if I could add some of his photographs to Wikipedia. It went something like this

"You should really read the GFDL or CC-BY for yourself, but in essence you agree to let anyone anywhere use your photographs in any way they see fit, including commercially, as long as they abide by the terms of the license."
"Including NAMBLA?"
"Yes. Including NAMBLA."

He never emailed me back.

The GFDL: Requiring you to get permission on behalf of NAMBLA since 2000.

This post has been edited by Chris Croy:

This whole brouhaha (I'm with the AP writer. The story has no legs) reminds me of when I asked a photographer if I could add some of his photographs to Wikipedia. It went something like this

"You should really read the GFDL or CC-BY for yourself, but in essence you agree to let anyone anywhere use your photographs in any way they see fit, including commercially, as long as they abide by the terms of the license."
"Including NAMBLA?"
"Yes. Including NAMBLA."

He never emailed me back.

The GFDL: Requiring you to get permission on behalf of NAMBLA since 2000.

This isn't a licensing issue, Chris.

It is an issue of whether moms and dads want to shop with Verizon, Microsoft, and Pizza Hut if they are seen to not care about a site that promotes an environment that endorses senseless violence against children for the prurient joy of some sick adults.

I don't care if the story never sees the mainstream media. E-mail and YouTube did just fine communicating Tay Zonday without the mainstream media.

Greg

This whole brouhaha (I'm with the AP writer. The story has no legs) reminds me of when I asked a photographer if I could add some of his photographs to Wikipedia. It went something like this

"You should really read the GFDL or CC-BY for yourself, but in essence you agree to let anyone anywhere use your photographs in any way they see fit, including commercially, as long as they abide by the terms of the license."
"Including NAMBLA?"
"Yes. Including NAMBLA."

He never emailed me back.

The GFDL: Requiring you to get permission on behalf of NAMBLA since 2000.

Hmm I'm with Greg here. There's a principle in Financial Services called 'Widows and Orphans'. Means: if you sell a risky product and a widow or orphan sues you, you are going to have to give their money back, even if the small print explains the risk, and even if you really did explain the risk. People react in a certain way to pictures of widows and orphans being evicted from their homes, for whatever reason.

Same principle here. OK the dim-witted parent who submitted the picture of their pretty 3 year old daughter in the bath to a photo-site should really have known that was stupid, and probably, somewhere, the implication was explained to them, perhaps in the bit you click on that says 'accept conditions' and won't let you go on until you have ticked it. Doesn't matter. A family picture ends up on a pervert site. End of story. Or rather, beginning of.

This story has any number of angles. Could be something in the Daily Mail about the dangers of photo sites. Could be something about 'Thomas the Tank Engine' supporting paedo websites. Any angle you like. Let's see anyway.

I shall certainly link the story from my site, which gets plenty of hits.

Spankart himself now comments on WR:

Well, I see that it may look like we've given in to a bunch of outside critics who don't like our open discussion of topics such as spanking art, child spanking or spanking fetishism (or who don't like wikis, Wikipedia or Wikia in general), and who just rant, troll and make ridiculous and absurd accusations. From a strictly legal point of view, the new restrictive rule was not necessary. I never ever saw a single page in this wiki on which pedophilia, violence or child abuse was condoned or encouraged. Likewise, I never ever saw a page in this wiki on which the personality rights of a child were violated - though I'm not a lawyer, and you never know how a court would decide.
Anyway, as you may know, people who did not like our wiki have appealed to Wikia to shut it down completely, and I was privately contacted by Wikia staff the next day after they had discussed the issue in the team. Our modified image use policy is a compromize that will allow us to continue the wiki. For me, the solution is acceptable because I think the contemporary child photos were not of such great importance to this wiki - they can be replaced by drawings, paintings and vintage photos. If there is a particular photo you'd like me to restore, I can pixelate the face with Photoshop. We still have 1,184 images after the deletion of 74 contemporary child photos. And of course, the wiki is still and will always be "anybody can edit". Spankart 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Spankart"

1. Having researched the issue, there is a big grey area around 'child erotica' i.e. stuff that is not explicent but obviously 'prurient'. This is why Yahoo and others shut down their previous website.

2. Still misses the point that large corporate advertisers have banners appearing on a 'child erotica' site.

I believe that IRS Form 1023‎ is engaging in behavior disruptive to this site and is becoming a serious problem. Aside from being clearly hostile to the basic premise of the Spanking Art Wikia, GFDL and Wikia in general he has attacked and insulted Roguebfl‎ on at least two occasions. I'd like to suggest an immediate and permanent block on this user to avoid an escalation of the present situation. Ciao, Blackshade9 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
I am generally not a friend of blocking disruptive users, but I agree in this case a block may be right, for the reasons you give. However I limited the block to two weeks. Spankart 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Spanking_Art:Admin_requests"

Blackshade is the 'artist' who produced the drawings on the 'panty shot' page

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Panty_shot

This is a page devoted to pictures of little girls with their skirts blown in the air, showing their panties.

His user page is here:

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/User:Blackshade9

which proudly displays a 10-year old girl showing her well-and-truly spanked bottom. Right. This is the 'open discussion of issues related to spanking' bit, is it?


This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

It appears that Spanking Art has been closed down. The link from the main page is now dead.

It appears that Spanking Art has been closed down. The link from the main page is now dead.

No, still there. It went dead a few minutes ago (as well as earlier this morning). Don't know if this connected with the current 'issue' or not.

However logging in is not possible any more.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

It appears that Spanking Art has been closed down. The link from the main page is now dead.

No, still there. It went dead a few minutes ago (as well as earlier this morning). Don't know if this connected with the current 'issue' or not.

However logging in is not possible any more.

Tsk, should read the posts.

I note the Spanking Art comment, and UK law specifically considers the issue of what it calls "pseudo-photographs." In other words, they are well aware of the means that people will go to to continue their "art". What is worst about his rant is that Spanking Art really believes what he says.

I note the Spanking Art comment, and UK law specifically considers the issue of what it calls "pseudo-photographs." In other words, they are well aware of the means that people will go to to continue their "art". What is worst about his rant is that Spanking Art really believes what he says.

Ah yes, you are absolutely right.

Protection of Children Act 1978

The law on images of child abuse is relatively clear. It means any images of children, apparently under 18 years old, involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative. Please note it is against the law to actively seek out such images and doing so in order to report to the IWF would not be a defence in court.

Section 1 of this act, as amended by the Criminal Justice and public Order Act 1994, creates various offences of taking or distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child under 18 years of age. It States:

1(1) It is an offence for a person -

To take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or to possess such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.'

So essentially, the many realistic pictures of children in sexually provocative poses on that site are 'pseudo photographs' and therefore covered by the law.

Of course it's not UK law in question here. On the other hand, presumably anyone visiting that site and who does not purge their cache is also liable for having them on the PC?

No, still there. It went dead a few minutes ago (as well as earlier this morning). Don't know if this connected with the current 'issue' or not.

However logging in is not possible any more.

I can't access it at all.

No, still there. It went dead a few minutes ago (as well as earlier this morning). Don't know if this connected with the current 'issue' or not.

However logging in is not possible any more.

I can't access it at all.

Neither can I, except for a couple of the user pages. How strange.

[edit] some of the pages are still there, but looks like they are going through page by page and deleting. Incredible.

This wiki has been removed pending further discussion within Wikia

Yet there is still a page of a schoolgirl getting spanked here

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Schoolgirl



This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

No, still there. It went dead a few minutes ago (as well as earlier this morning). Don't know if this connected with the current 'issue' or not.

However logging in is not possible any more.

I can't access it at all.

Neither can I, except for a couple of the user pages. How strange.

I got a page saying that it was "temporarily closed down, pending further discussion at Wikia"....

Now, according to the UK law, wouldn't hosting this graphic image of a man anally penetrating an obviously under-aged boy be considered a crime in the UK?

That one's right on commons....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

I'm just getting a straight "301 Moved Permanently" redirect to http://removed.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy:

Now, according to the UK law, wouldn't hosting this graphic image of a man anally penetrating an obviously under-aged boy be considered a crime in the UK?

Not under the Act in question - because a)
it probably wouldn't hit the quite precise definition of a "pseudo-photograph" and b) because the definition of "indecency" is wooly as hell in UK law, and a reproduction of something that hangs in a gallery would likely not match.

Standard internet disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so this post may be utter chuff.

This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy:

Now, according to the UK law, wouldn't hosting this graphic image of a man anally penetrating an obviously under-aged boy be considered a crime in the UK?

Not under the Act in question - because a)
it probably wouldn't hit the quite precise definition of a "pseudo-photograph" and (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) because the definition of "indecency" is wooly as hell in UK law, and a reproduction of something that hangs in a gallery would likely not match.

Standard internet disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so this post may be utter chuff.

Probably worth a look on Wikipedia about that. As it is an older law, the text isn't readily available on the Internet. However, for that, a different law would apply in the UK. For the drawing, the question would be: is this an obscene publication? The test there is something along the lines of "Is it likely to deprave and corrupt?"

I would also urge people to be careful in their wanderings. As I alluded to elsewhere, two prominent people, Pete Townsend of the Who and Chris Langham (comedian and writer) failed miserably in their "research" defence, even with the sort of legal fees they could afford, ( O J Simpson defences are harder here unless you are a hardened criminal, then you can a murder policeman and get off on the claim of being in fear of your life). The Internet Watch Foundation specifically warns that it is not a defence, so don't go hunting out examples.

On another topic, although Spanking Art has been swept under the carpet, the carpet that is Google retains a cache of that site. Who goes to Google et al. to get that cleaned up?

Possibly worth an email or two.

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

Protection of Children Act 1978 Please note it is against the law to actively seek out such images and doing so in order to report to the IWF would not be a defence in court.

Of course it's not UK law in question here. On the other hand, presumably anyone visiting that site and who does not purge their cache is also liable for having them on the PC?

Well, according to the law you just quoted, just purging
the cache wouldn't be enough. If you stumble on the
spanking Wikia once, not knowing there were such images
there, it was an accident and you would not be responsible,
assuming you cleared your cache.

However, now that we know that the spanking Wikia
contains such material, according to the law you quoted,
we should refrain from visiting it, only visit it using
text-only browsers like Lynx, or block our graphical
browsers from displaying the pictures from that website.

Which, admittedly, makes it difficult to criticise them.

This post has been edited by AB:

However, now that we know that the spanking Wikia
contains such material, according to the law you quoted,
we should refrain from visiting it, only visit it using
text-only browsers like Lynx, or block our graphical
browsers from displaying the pictures from that website.

Which, admittedly, makes it difficult to criticise them.

I think the Spanking Art site was careful not to stray that far, though I am fairly sure that if it had been in the UK it could have been held to contravene the Obscene Publications Act - all without a password to protect them from minors and instantly accessible from the Thomas the Tank Engine sister site.

For that reason, I would urge anyone (including Greg) to be VERY careful about what they distribute, because even if they are not covered by UK law, some unwitting soul down the line might be.

However, now that we know that the spanking Wikia
contains such material, according to the law you quoted,
we should refrain from visiting it, only visit it using
text-only browsers like Lynx, or block our graphical
browsers from displaying the pictures from that website.

Which, admittedly, makes it difficult to criticise them.

I think the Spanking Art site was careful not to stray that far, though I am fairly sure that if it had been in the UK it could have been held to contravene the Obscene Publications Act - all without a password to protect them from minors and instantly accessible from the Thomas the Tank Engine sister site.

For that reason, I would urge anyone (including Greg) to be VERY careful about what they distribute, because even if they are not covered by UK law, some unwitting soul down the line might be.

Well, even if Wikia isn't covered by UK anti-certain-
types-of-porn laws, UK viewers are. Accidentally
stumbling upon such material is apparently not
illegal, but seeking it out, even for the purpose of
criticism, apparently is. Also, if the pictures were
found to be in violation of UK defamation law, that
would be grounds for a civil suit in the UK. (Libel
tourism.)

Disclaimer: Not lawyer.

I'm just getting a straight "301 Moved Permanently" redirect to http://removed.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

So am I. The little used spanking art mailing list is still on wikia servers though. And Jimbo just popped his head out of his hole and responded to a few comments on his user page today, which may mean something. Still no comment on this spanking art issue.

Now, according to the UK law, wouldn't hosting this graphic image of a man anally penetrating an obviously under-aged boy be considered a crime in the UK?

Not under the Act in question - because a)
it probably wouldn't hit the quite precise definition of a "pseudo-photograph" and (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) because the definition of "indecency" is wooly as hell in UK law, and a reproduction of something that hangs in a gallery would likely not match.

Standard internet disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so this post may be utter chuff.

Probably worth a look on Wikipedia about that. As it is an older law, the text isn't readily available on the Internet. However, for that, a different law would apply in the UK. For the drawing, the question would be: is this an obscene publication? The test there is something along the lines of "Is it likely to deprave and corrupt?"

I would also urge people to be careful in their wanderings. As I alluded to elsewhere, two prominent people, Pete Townsend of the Who and Chris Langham (comedian and writer) failed miserably in their "research" defence, even with the sort of legal fees they could afford, ( O J Simpson defences are harder here unless you are a hardened criminal, then you can a murder policeman and get off on the claim of being in fear of your life). The Internet Watch Foundation specifically warns that it is not a defence, so don't go hunting out examples.

On another topic, although Spanking Art has been swept under the carpet, the carpet that is Google retains a cache of that site. Who goes to Google et al. to get that cleaned up?

Possibly worth an email or two.

UK acts are generally available as PDF's at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

Your point on the Townsend effect is spot on, and I found myself making a point of avoiding a lot of the pages on the spanking site for exactly that reason. Taking the "stamp of approval" off that kind of material is one of the better justifications for deleting the site, IMO.

In theory, Google's cache should be replaced with the "dummy" site when it encounters the 301 on its next crawl. Archive.org, however, appears to have copies of the thing going back 18 months - sending a mail to them.

It's probably a bit late in the game for any additional self-congratulatory WR rhetoric, particularly from me (since I've been a bit out-of-it during the last few days), but I'd just like to commend everyone involved here for some stellar work in bringing this issue to light and helping to point some of the steaming cesspool of Wikiland in the direction of the nearest drainage ditch.

I seem to recall having been spanked once or twice when I was a kid, back in the 60's when it was still fairly acceptable... Luckily though, there were no photographers or untalented illustrators present. And I suppose we're all fortunate that this is 2008, and spanking kids is no longer necessary - all you have to do now is take away their Nintendos, right?

Maybe they should start a new Wikia called "takingawaykidsvideogamesystemsart.wikia.com," in which people upload photographs and drawings of themselves disconnecting Wii's, GameCubes, X-Boxes, PlayStations, and so on, for the purpose of generating brief periods of sexual arousal.

I just completed a most painful e-mail exchange with Jimbo, with his co-workers copied on all of it.

Apparently, Jimbo thought that the ONE photo of Boy Scouts was the sum total of the problem with Spanking Art Wikia, and he thought that his removal of that ONE photo completely solved all problems with that site.

He also admonished me for not just telling him about this by e-mail in the first place; not remembering, I guess, that my e-mail to him from December 24th, and two follow-up e-mails asking if I would get a response, plus a ping on Facebook to which he replied that Wikia Search was keeping him too busy to even read my e-mail, went utterly unattended to.

He then warned me not to tell lies about him, or he would take legal action against me.

Can anyone explain to me exactly how Jimbo gets away with this kind of attitude with someone who very well may have just saved his company a couple million dollars' worth of bad PR and lost advertisers?

Greg

P.S. This nomination becomes rather funny in retrospect. I like the line "80% of its current contents was written by a single author". So, if Jimbo has any need to litigate against someone, might I suggest he go after Mister 80% before he even dreams of serving me?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

Apparently, Jimbo thought that the ONE photo of Boy Scouts was the sum total of the problem with Spanking Art Wikia, and he thought that his removal of that ONE photo completely solved all problems with that site.

Gosh, how typical and predictable. What or who finally convinced him otherwise? And why is that your responsibility to tell him things about Wikia when he's supposed to have PEOPLE ON THE FUCKING PAYROLL ™ to do things like that.

I think a thorough blog summary of this entire mess is in order.

Yes, it should've been done a while ago but thankfully there's one in the works, so I hear.

Yes, it should've been done a while ago but thankfully there's one in the works, so I hear.

If one hasn't been written by February 5th, I will write one on my cross-country flight that evening.

Yes, it should've been done a while ago but thankfully there's one in the works, so I hear.

If one hasn't been written by February 5th, I will write one on my cross-country flight that evening.

It should be done way before that.

I just completed a most painful e-mail exchange with Jimbo, with his co-workers copied on all of it.

Apparently, Jimbo thought that the ONE photo of Boy Scouts was the sum total of the problem with Spanking Art Wikia, and he thought that his removal of that ONE photo completely solved all problems with that site.

He also admonished me for not just telling him about this by e-mail in the first place; not remembering, I guess, that my e-mail to him from December 24th, and two follow-up e-mails asking if I would get a response, plus a ping on Facebook to which he replied that Wikia Search was keeping him too busy to even read my e-mail, went utterly unattended to.

He then warned me not to tell lies about him, or he would take legal action against me.

Can anyone explain to me exactly how Jimbo gets away with this kind of attitude with someone who very well may have just saved his company a couple million dollars' worth of bad PR and lost advertisers?

Greg

P.S. This nomination becomes rather funny in retrospect. I like the line "80% of its current contents was written by a single author". So, if Jimbo has any need to litigate against someone, might I suggest he go after Mister 80% before he even dreams of serving me?

(i'm quoting the entire post since this went to page 8 on my browser and want to make sure others see it)

RE: Bold section: To quote one of Jimbo's loyal minions, Guy Chapman, you are persona non grata (Guy sure loves latin, doesn't he?) and nothing can change that.