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:

[Silver seren]

Have you guys even bothered to look up the term? It's used extensively throughout all the literature, from the news, to books, to academic articles.

This is a pretty good study, even if it's kind of old.

[Somey]

Have you guys even bothered to look up the term? It's used extensively throughout all the literature...

I did, but just because they coined it at least two decades ago doesn't mean they couldn't come up with something better, even now.

However, point taken. Please carry on with your Sue Gardner community-absorption efforts!

[Silver seren]

Have you guys even bothered to look up the term? It's used extensively throughout all the literature...

I did, but just because they coined it at least two decades ago doesn't mean they couldn't come up with something better, even now.

However, point taken. Please carry on with your Sue Gardner community-absorption efforts!

It really has nothing to do with her. Making the article has nothing to do with the importance of the term.