Takin' Out the Trash: My First Two Scalps, My Crusade Against Porn Fan-Boi Spam at Wikipedia Options

[KevinOKeeffe]

These are also women. It's not necessary to split woman kind into madonnas or whores.

Its not a question of some straw man madonna-vs-whore dichotomy. I think most reasonable people regret the extent to which porn has become a part of mainstream American culture, but are disinclined, due to the First Amendment, to support doing anything about it. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a government agency. It can choose to have higher standards than serving as a repository for the minutiae of the lives of porn stars. I think most reasonable people understand implicitly that the cataloging of such commercialized vice is not the proper role of an encyclopedia.

There are far worse things in this world than sex and the filming of sex. In fact, pretty much all of the bad things are worse. Possibly the worst thing about filming sex for money is the scorn it generates from a subset of people who now feel entitled to look down on you because you have filmed sex for money.

You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion. I happen to adhere to a different view on that question.

Could you save it for people who drop bombs on other counties for not good reason, or make loans they know can't be repaid, and sell them like hot potatoes to banks who will collect them until they require the taxpaper to bail them out?

Suffice it to say that my involvement in attempting to suppress the porn fan boi spam at Wikipedia is not the sum total of my activities there. Hell, I've been involved in that activity for less than two weeks, and I continue to work on other things while I direct some of my energies in that direction. In any event, it does seem we share some of the concerns about the larger world's socio-political affairs. For the record, let me make it very clear I always voted against the two Georges Bush, John McCain, and Bob Dole (albeit not for the Democrats since 1992).

I once tried prodding (not a euphemism) a lot of Penthouse Pet of the Month BLP's. Apparently just being a Pet of the month makes you notable, at least according to Wikiproject:Pornlovers, or whatever it's called. I was accused of disruption if memory serves. The moral of the story is "Don't mess with a wikipediots right to fill the 'pedia with porno stubs" Human knowledge, sum of, African children, blah, blah, blah.

A new, stricter version of the WP:Pornbio criteria was issued several months ago; being a Penthouse Pet is no longer sufficient, in and of itself, to establish notability (although being a Playboy Playmate still qualifies, and in fairness, Playboy does play a much larger role in the American socio-cultural consciousness than Penthouse ever has, although its still absurd that all 700 or so women who have ever been a Playboy Playmate are now deemed worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia).

Here is a link to the discussion about the new WP:Pornbio criteria (which are better than the previous set, albeit still woefully too permissive). The discussion about whether the new criteria should be rolled-back to the looser standards of the past, is directly below it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...le)#Porn_Awards

[carbuncle]

These are also women. It's not necessary to split woman kind into madonnas or whores.

Its not a question of some straw man madonna-vs-whore dichotomy. I think most reasonable people regret the extent to which porn has become a part of mainstream American culture, but are disinclined, due to the First Amendment, to support doing anything about it. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a government agency. It can choose to have higher standards than serving as a repository for the minutiae of the lives of porn stars. I think most reasonable people understand implicitly that the cataloging of such commercialized vice is not the proper role of an encyclopedia.

Judging by this edit, it's not a straw man at all.

Death

I'm afraid that the news of her death is in fact real. Please see the family's photos of her funeral, which incidently in one of the pictures also verfies her Bahai upbringing. She left the porn industry a while back hence the fact there is no news of her death in print, but I'm sure it will get around. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.151.36 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder if society will be able to take the hit from such a loss? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to a two year old comment with a disparaging and insensitive remark pretty much negates any other justifications you might have, at least in my mind. I guess porn actors fall into the "whore" category?

[sbrown]

I am going to get those articles dug up and put on Simple Wikipedia - the kids there need to learn about the birds and the bees, and I'm the horse who can teach that subject!

Why not put them on encyc? Emperor would give you a hug.

[KevinOKeeffe]

Replying to a two year old comment with a disparaging and insensitive remark pretty much negates any other justifications you might have, at least in my mind. I guess porn actors fall into the "whore" category?

Obviously porn star are whores, rather by definition, since they whore themselves out (in the most literal sense), and incidentally allow the proceedings to be filmed. Never-the-less, that doesn't indicate my adherence to a false dichotomy of all women being either-whores-or-madonnas. Most women are neither, just as most men are neither villains nor saints.

I suppose it was a bit rascally of me to suggest the death of that one porn store was an event of little or no social significance (even if that statement is objectively accurate, it is perhaps in poor taste to point it out), but what can I say? I find the porn fan bois on Wikipedia extremely irritating, and I guess I trolled them in that one instance. I suppose I felt it was a little absurd for them to be posting such a seriously worded statement of condolence about the loss of someone who was, for them, nothing more than a stroke-fest fantasy. I still do feel that way, actually. In my opinion, there is something genuinely wrong with a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met. Mocking the grief of such twits may actually be helpful to them, in that it may serve as a reminder that the time is past due for them to grow up.

[Law]

Obviously porn star are whores, rather by definition, since they whore themselves out (in the most literal sense), and incidentally allow the proceedings to be filmed.

I find the porn fan bois on Wikipedia extremely irritating, and I guess I trolled them in that one instance.

In my opinion, there is something genuinely wrong with a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met. Mocking the grief of such twits may actually be helpful to them, in that it may serve as a reminder that the time is past due for them to grow up.

You have a lot of opinions about porn, but feeling the need to demonstrate how a porn star is literally a whore, and commenting on the fan base, says to me that you have issues that are far deeper than those you try and dissect. I'm all for nuking BLPs, but not because I have an anti-porn agenda -- I'm just tired of shitty bios. I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about who consenting adults fuck, when they fuck, where they fuck, and if they do it for money or not. Who the fuck wants to spend their life worrying about who fucks who and what position they fuck in is beyond me.

[Eva Destruction]

Obviously porn star are whores, rather by definition, since they whore themselves out (in the most literal sense), and incidentally allow the proceedings to be filmed.

I find the porn fan bois on Wikipedia extremely irritating, and I guess I trolled them in that one instance.

In my opinion, there is something genuinely wrong with a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met. Mocking the grief of such twits may actually be helpful to them, in that it may serve as a reminder that the time is past due for them to grow up.

You have a lot of opinions about porn, but feeling the need to demonstrate how a porn star is literally a whore, and commenting on the fan base, says to me that you have issues that are far deeper than those you try and dissect. I'm all for nuking BLPs, but not because I have an anti-porn agenda -- I'm just tired of shitty bios. I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about who consenting adults fuck, when they fuck, where they fuck, and if they do it for money or not. Who the fuck wants to spend their life worrying about who fucks who and what position they fuck in is beyond me.

Absolutely. How is "a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met" any different from a fan of Mariah Carey, Derek Jeter or Bill O'Reilly, othar than that he's a fan of someone doing something you don't personally like? I think Led Zeppelin sound like cats being toasted, but that doesn't mean that if I go to someone's house and see a "Houses of the Holy" poster on the wall I immediately assume they're in need of psychotherapy.

[KevinOKeeffe]

You have a lot of opinions about porn, but feeling the need to demonstrate how a porn star is literally a whore, and commenting on the fan base, says to me that you have issues that are far deeper than those you try and dissect. I'm all for nuking BLPs, but not because I have an anti-porn agenda -- I'm just tired of shitty bios. I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about who consenting adults fuck, when they fuck, where they fuck, and if they do it for money or not. Who the fuck wants to spend their life worrying about who fucks who and what position they fuck in is beyond me.

Which raises the question, who gives a fuck what you think?

[A Horse With No Name]

You have a lot of opinions about porn, but feeling the need to demonstrate how a porn star is literally a whore, and commenting on the fan base, says to me that you have issues that are far deeper than those you try and dissect. I'm all for nuking BLPs, but not because I have an anti-porn agenda -- I'm just tired of shitty bios. I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about who consenting adults fuck, when they fuck, where they fuck, and if they do it for money or not. Who the fuck wants to spend their life worrying about who fucks who and what position they fuck in is beyond me.

Which raises the question, who gives a fuck what you think?

Who wants to make a bet that Kev probably has DVDs of "Debbie Does Dallas" stashed in his beard?

[KevinOKeeffe]

Obviously porn star are whores, rather by definition, since they whore themselves out (in the most literal sense), and incidentally allow the proceedings to be filmed.

I find the porn fan bois on Wikipedia extremely irritating, and I guess I trolled them in that one instance.

In my opinion, there is something genuinely wrong with a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met. Mocking the grief of such twits may actually be helpful to them, in that it may serve as a reminder that the time is past due for them to grow up.

Absolutely. How is "a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met" any different from a fan of Mariah Carey, Derek Jeter or Bill O'Reilly, othar than that he's a fan of someone doing something you don't personally like? I think Led Zeppelin sound like cats being toasted, but that doesn't mean that if I go to someone's house and see a "Houses of the Holy" poster on the wall I immediately assume they're in need of psychotherapy.

Its not so much a question of my personally disliking pornography, so much as it is a question of my being right to dislike pornography. Other people should dislike it, too. I'm not some relativist who's afraid of appearing "judgmental." I can tell the difference between right & wrong, and I don't mind saying so. I know that's not fashionable in the present era, but I'm not particularly enamored with the value systems of the present era, and thus have no great wish to be perceived as in conformity to them.

And of course, whatever one's opinion about pornography, I should think that even people who like it very much ought still never-the-less understand that its not really the sort of information that exists within the best traditions of what ought to constitute an encyclopedia.

This post has been edited by KevinOKeeffe: Sat 1st August 2009, 12:01pm

[Moulton]

Today's essay question, in the spirit of educational discussion:

In Don Quixote, was Dulcinea a "Madonna" or a strumpet? Explain your reasoning.

Extra credit for related literary examples.

[Cedric]

And of course, whatever one's opinion about pornography, I should think that even people who like it very much ought still never-the-less understand that its not really the sort of information that exists within the best traditions of what ought to constitute an encyclopedia.

Those who truly believe in "the best traditions of what ought to constitute an encyclopedia" have no business contributing to Wikipedia in the first place.

[GlassBeadGame]

Obviously porn star are whores, rather by definition, since they whore themselves out (in the most literal sense), and incidentally allow the proceedings to be filmed. Never-the-less, that doesn't indicate my adherence to a false dichotomy of all women being either-whores-or-madonnas. Most women are neither, just as most men are neither villains nor saints.

This is why I held back and let you comment for a while before entering the discussion. I'm well on record as opposing Wikipedia irresponsible hosting pornography while providing no child protective matters at all. The concern is first for children and their parents, then for those exploited and demeaned by pornography (mostly women, including the workers in the industry.) This has nothing to do with those workers being "whores." You have now lost you pet role as the site's most reasonable fascist. Thanks for showing your misogny relatively early on.

[Eva Destruction]

You have now lost you pet role as the site's most reasonable fascist. Thanks for showing your misogny relatively early on.

Since the only other one I can think of is Lolwut, I think Kevin still wins by default.

[Somey]

Well.... to be fair, I'd have to say that Mr. O'Keefe is probably a "misogynist" only from the progressive/liberal perspective, which tends to include a wider definition of personal freedom and responsibility than the social-conservative perspective. I don't think it's unreasonable to view porn actresses as either victims of a corrupt media-driven social system, or even as opportunistic money-grabbers, shameless or otherwise. "Whores" is a loaded word, of course, and it would be better not to use it, but IMO it doesn't really become misogyny until you start making assumptions about tendencies towards evil vs. good, or start claiming that women are "morally weak" and gravitate to these kinds of things as part of their basic nature, etc., etc. (Unless you just hate women in general, of course.)

I'd also agree that traditional standards of coverage for an encyclopedia are faaaaarrrrr better than Wikipedia's in this particular regard. Nevertheless, I'd also have to say that most of these porn-star bios are relatively harmless, as long as they're not too explicit in themselves, and the porn-star in question wants them (which, I'd imagine, is usually the case). The Aja bio doesn't even give her real name, at least not at the moment.

And of course, this is actually a good example of where a BLP opt-out policy would be ideal, since it would give the porn-stars themselves a chance to (at least partially) clean the slate if they ever decide to leave the industry.

[carbuncle]

Well.... to be fair, I'd have to say that Mr. O'Keefe is probably a "misogynist" only from the progressive/liberal perspective, which tends to include a wider definition of personal freedom and responsibility than the social-conservative perspective. I don't think it's unreasonable to view porn actresses as either victims of a corrupt media-driven social system, or even as opportunistic money-grabbers, shameless or otherwise. "Whores" is a loaded word, of course, and it would be better not to use it, but IMO it doesn't really become misogyny until you start making assumptions about tendencies towards evil vs. good, or start claiming that women are "morally weak" and gravitate to these kinds of things as part of their basic nature, etc., etc. (Unless you just hate women in general, of course.)

I'd also agree that traditional standards of coverage for an encyclopedia are faaaaarrrrr better than Wikipedia's in this particular regard. Nevertheless, I'd also have to say that most of these porn-star bios are relatively harmless, as long as they're not too explicit in themselves, and the porn-star in question wants them (which, I'd imagine, is usually the case). The Aja bio doesn't even give her real name, at least not at the moment.

And of course, this is actually a good example of where a BLP opt-out policy would be ideal, since it would give the porn-stars themselves a chance to (at least partially) clean the slate if they ever decide to leave the industry.

I don't think Kevin would quite agree with you on the opt-out policy:

Its not a question of what an individual needs, or does not need, to know. It is a question of this being an encyclopedia, and and as such, we are not in the business of concealing relevant information, in order to make the subject of a given article more comfortable about the (shameful) way they make their living. If this person is actually notable to the extent that there ought to be an article about her (I, for one, find that most unlikely, and even a little distasteful), then it is absurd not to include her real name. The idea of a biographical article that does not contain the subject's name is frankly bizarre. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 19:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that whores are the only people Kevin hates. See his comments at [[Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom]]...

[KevinOKeeffe]

Obviously porn star are whores, rather by definition, since they whore themselves out (in the most literal sense), and incidentally allow the proceedings to be filmed. Never-the-less, that doesn't indicate my adherence to a false dichotomy of all women being either-whores-or-madonnas. Most women are neither, just as most men are neither villains nor saints.

This is why I held back and let you comment for a while before entering the discussion. I'm well on record as opposing Wikipedia irresponsible hosting pornography while providing no child protective matters at all. The concern is first for children and their parents, then for those exploited and demeaned by pornography (mostly women, including the workers in the industry.) This has nothing to do with those workers being "whores." You have now lost you pet role as the site's most reasonable fascist. Thanks for showing your misogny relatively early on.

How is it "misogynist" to note the simple fact that women who engage in sex for money are, by definition, whores, irrespective of whether they compound their whoring by allowing it to be filmed? I can assure you, my opinion of the male whores who perform in pornographic films is just as low, if not actually lower, than my opinion of the female whores similarly engaged. Most pornography is pretty much the ultimate media expression of misogyny, for that matter, silly "New Wave Feminist" cockamamie drivel to the contrary not-withstanding.

This post has been edited by KevinOKeeffe: Sat 1st August 2009, 10:23pm

[KevinOKeeffe]

I doubt that whores are the only people Kevin hates. See his comments at [[Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom]]...

I try to refrain from hating anyone, but in those particular circumstances where I fail in that endeavour, I reserve my hatred for specific individuals, not entire classes of people. The statement I hate "women" is remarkably silly. On right-wing boards where I participate in discussions of socio-political issues, I am frequently derided as "a fag" for my refusal to go along with an often predominantly misogynist ethos, where I constantly point out the Boobus Americanus male leaves even more to be desired than his female counterpart.

This post has been edited by KevinOKeeffe: Sat 1st August 2009, 10:36pm

[carbuncle]

How is it "misogynist" to note the simple fact that women who engage in sex for money are, by definition, whores, irrespective of whether they compound their whoring by allowing it to be filmed? I can assure you, my opinion of the male whores who perform in pornographic films is just as low, if not actually lower, than my opinion of the female whores similarly engaged. Most pornography is pretty much the ultimate media expression of misogyny, for that matter, silly "New Wave Feminist" cockamamie drivel to the contrary not-withstanding.

I suspect that we might actually agree on some of the ill effects of pornography on the collective psyche. We clearly differ in how we view the people who are involved in it or in prostitution.

I try to refrain from hating anyone, but in those particular circumstances where I fail in that endeavour, I reserve my hatred for specific individuals, not entire classes of people. The statement I hate "women" is remarkably silly. On right-wing boards where I participate in discussions of socio-political issues, I am frequently derided as "a fag" for my refusal to go along with an often predominantly misogynist ethos, where I constantly point out the Boobus Americanus male leaves even more to be desired than his female counterpart.

So you hate all whores individually?

[carbuncle]

Hey, you're this Kevin O'Keefe, aren't you?

More than 700 people braved the unforgiving heat yesterday to attend a rally against hate at Palo Alto's Jewish Community Center, which in recent weeks became the target of anti-Semitic threats.

Palo Alto police arrested San Jose security guard Kevin Riley O'Keefe, on August 13 for making threatening phone calls to the center over a two-month period.

O'Keefe, who had neo-Nazi literature at his home and has since apologized for the phone calls, remains in custody in lieu of $1 million bail.

...

Full article here

Good luck in the WMF Trustee election!

[Milton Roe]

Hey, you're this Kevin O'Keefe, aren't you?

More than 700 people braved the unforgiving heat yesterday to attend a rally against hate at Palo Alto's Jewish Community Center, which in recent weeks became the target of anti-Semitic threats.

Palo Alto police arrested San Jose security guard Kevin Riley O'Keefe, on August 13 for making threatening phone calls to the center over a two-month period.

O'Keefe, who had neo-Nazi literature at his home and has since apologized for the phone calls, remains in custody in lieu of $1 million bail.

...

Full article here

Good luck in the WMF Trustee election!

There are a lot of Kevin O'Keeffes in the world, no doubt.

If this is the same one, OTH, he'd pick up the WP skinhead vote, but probably lose the WP Jewish vote.

I've been trying to guess here how this would go...