Options

[jsalsman]

Someone explain to me why, when Director Gardner creates an article about some humorist author in Boston or a dozen emo kids who get killed in Baghdad on suspicion of being gay, a bunch of editors pitch in and help her out and tell her what a good job she's doing, but when she writes an article on hundreds of thousands of homeless kids who have to sell their bodies to survive, it's all crickets?

Don't tell me Wikipedians are perverts. They're almost entirely prudes afraid to face the decay in their own society when they could be arguing over how many animated penises to have on Commons instead. Pathetic.

(IMG:http://i39.tinypic.com/1zp62og.png)

This post has been edited by jsalsman:

[EricBarbour]

Don't tell me Wikipedians are perverts. They're almost entirely prudes afraid to face the decay in their own society when they could be arguing over how many animated penises to have on Commons instead. Pathetic.

Basically, you can't make a simple blanket statement about Wikipedians--with exceptions. They are generally paranoid, humorless and intolerant of criticism.

As for the survival sex article: I suspect that would probably have been speedied, if it had not been created by Sue Gardner. It's not about sports, it's not about some political cause, it's not about Doctor Who or videogames, and it's "boring" to Aspies. And it's not interesting to the pedos.

I also noticed that someone who worked on the article last month was banned as one of your socks.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Somey]

As for the survival sex article: I suspect that would probably have been speedied, if it had not been created by Sue Gardner. It's not about sports, it's not about some political cause, it's not about Doctor Who or videogames, and it's "boring" to Aspies. And it's not interesting to the pedos.

To be fair, I suspect the rationale here is one of political correctness, to define certain forms of prostitution more as pure victimization (of the prostitutes) than as mere exploitation, or as a legitimate form of employment. So there probably is a "political cause" involved, and it's probably being driven by the Indian WP community, since this is probably a much more serious problem in India. In fact, I believe Bishakha Datta on the WMF Board of Trustees has done some film-documentary work that would have touched on this issue...

Nevertheless, calling it "survival sex" tends to make the whole thing much more salacious than it probably could be. I'm not sure what they'd call it instead, but you'd think they could come up with something better than that? Something like "survival self-abasement" would be more accurate, but possibly even worse from a political-correctness perspective.

Either way, there's almost no question that the article would have been AfD'd (at the very least) if Sue Gardner hadn't written it.