EXCLUSIVE: Pedophiles Find a Home on Wikipedia - FOXNews Options Rating

[Newsfeed]

FOXNews

Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in ...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/...e-on-wikipedia/

[Peter Damian]

Stillwaterising has come in for much criticism at WR but he is saying the right thing here, isn't he?

I guess I don't see how our current policies are working. Case in point: Futanari. The current revision (here) displays an image that has been up since June 21. The image passed a Deletion Review on Commons (fail). I twice tried to remove the image (fail). I went to AN/I to request that the users be blocked and the page be full protected (fail). I've actually been warned to not remove the image again or face a block (fail).I also reported the image to infowikimedia.org yesterday, no reply (fail). I even reported this to ArbCom - no action taken (fail). Finally, I've reported the image to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children yesterday, however I do not expect quick action from them. Bashing Fox News is not helpful. They did not cause this problem, and vehement denials will not solve this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those are fails, they are all good. This is more clear cut than the Virgin Killer farrago, and the image is clearly not problematic. If you continue to make threats you may be blocked again. This is not a case in point, but an example of the policy working. Verbal chat 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Commons:Category:Erotic activities involving children "all good" too? How is it a example of policy working for you to threaten me here for something I'm not doing? Isn't this just an example of and admin not following existing policies like WP:Harassment? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in clicking that link and I have no interest in the commons. Your "example" is irrelevant as it does not depict "child porn" in a legal sense or the Fox sense. It is irrelevant. As I said on ANI, you are continuing to attempt to induce a chilling effect with your ill-founded claims and canvass them. You've stated your opinion, you've reported the picture. No action has been taken. Learn from that. Verbal chat 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#Fox_News_report

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 27th June 2010, 10:22am

[GlassBeadGame]

Stillwaterising has come in for much criticism at WR but he is saying the right thing here, isn't he?

I guess I don't see how our current policies are working. Case in point: Futanari. The current revision (here) displays an image that has been up since June 21. The image passed a Deletion Review on Commons (fail). I twice tried to remove the image (fail). I went to AN/I to request that the users be blocked and the page be full protected (fail). I've actually been warned to not remove the image again or face a block (fail).I also reported the image to infowikimedia.org yesterday, no reply (fail). I even reported this to ArbCom - no action taken (fail). Finally, I've reported the image to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children yesterday, however I do not expect quick action from them. Bashing Fox News is not helpful. They did not cause this problem, and vehement denials will not solve this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those are fails, they are all good. This is more clear cut than the Virgin Killer farrago, and the image is clearly not problematic. If you continue to make threats you may be blocked again. This is not a case in point, but an example of the policy working. Verbal chat 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Commons:Category:Erotic activities involving children "all good" too? How is it a example of policy working for you to threaten me here for something I'm not doing? Isn't this just an example of and admin not following existing policies like WP:Harassment? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in clicking that link and I have no interest in the commons. Your "example" is irrelevant as it does not depict "child porn" in a legal sense or the Fox sense. It is irrelevant. As I said on ANI, you are continuing to attempt to induce a chilling effect with your ill-founded claims and canvass them. You've stated your opinion, you've reported the picture. No action has been taken. Learn from that. Verbal chat 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo#Fox_News_report

To him the important thing is be some kind of "sex expert" so that he can engage in discussion. The discussion is what is important to him. He has learned to say many moderate things to keep himself in the thick of it. It is not an accident that he favors a detailed case by case analysis and categorization. He has learned how to get Wikipedia to feed his pathology.

[Somey]

To him the important thing is be some kind of "sex expert" so that he can engage in discussion. The discussion is what is important to him. He has learned to say many moderate things to keep himself in the thick of it. It is not an accident that he favors a detailed case by case analysis and categorization. He has learned how to get Wikipedia to feed his pathology.

Right, but putting his underlying motives aside for the moment, it's impossible to entertain the notion that the person who uploaded the Futanari image did so in a "good faith" attempt to educate people about a significant aspect of Japanese culture. (Not leastwise because it's not a significant aspect of Japanese culture.) And it's fairly clear (to me, at least) that the two naked she-male characters are supposed to be adolescents, aside from the fact that they don't look all that human to start with. The dismissive arguments against what he's saying, especially the "it's irrelevant" comments, remind me more of User:JoshuaZ than of anyone who might have a legitimate objection to deleting these images on anti-censorship grounds...

I guess what I'm saying is that I can accept that Stillwaterising is both strongly pro-adult-porn and strongly anti-child-porn, because my own views on the subject are somewhat similar, and I tend to think it's not an especially uncommon set of views to hold (though I'm not saying adult porn is "healthy" or should be more readily available to people, mind you).

Either way, the real problem he's up against here is that there are a lot of WP'ers who really, really, really dig those sexually-twisted Japanese porn-manga drawings, and like all WP'ers they don't like being thwarted. There's also a non-negligible possibility that someone's using the porn-manga material as a "wedge strategy," to eventually get similarly-explicit photorealistic material uploaded and kept - but IMO most people don't think that far in advance.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Right, but putting his underlying motives aside for the moment, it's impossible to entertain the notion that the person who uploaded the Futanari image did so in a "good faith" attempt to educate people about a significant aspect of Japanese culture. (Not leastwise because it's not a significant aspect of Japanese culture.)

Yah, interesting point.

Is it Japanese culture, pornography culture or underground comic culture? We all tend to "play football" with national teams if it suits our prejudices, but why? The actions of a tiny few within another nation can hardly be ascribed to an entire nation, most of whom might well be appalled by them.

It is like saying "pedophilia is part of Belgian culture" because of fairly recent events there (false), pedophilia is part of the culture of Roman Catholic or Scout leader priesthood (possible true) ... do all Wikipedians see the hard core amateur pornography the part of Wikipedian culture which it has become?

Certain cultures are entirely transnational bearing little to no connection to their host cultures and it could be argued that they are entirely parasitical ... which in the body, they are not off it. Are the Wiki-pornographers not that and should they not be dealt with as that?

I am still forced to see it all as some kind of inappropriate and (albeit perhaps fairly mildly) abusive sexual exhibitionism ... The Joy of Corruption rather than The Joy of Sex. The Joy of Sex is worth mentioning in this context as pretty much the turning point in popular publishing as its "illustrations and text are titillating as well as illustrative, in contrast to the bland, clinical style of earlier books about sex".

Much of the counter-argument to the unfettered sexualisation of an encyclopedia targeting children and educational facilities is that, perhaps, if the topics have to be covered and illustrated, they should return to that " bland, clinical" style. I'd wonder if the division between the various protagonists as Pre-JOS and Post-JOS.